[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361984688.2035.20.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:04:48 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
"Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@...rhumer.com>,
Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org,
Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...nedhand.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Joe Millenbach <jmillenbach@...il.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>,
Egon Alter <egon.alter@....net>, hyojun.im@....com,
chan.jeong@....com, raphael.andy.lee@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernel
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 16:31 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 07:49:12AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:40:34PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 22:10 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > So... for a selected kernel version of a particular size, can we please
> > > > > have a comparison between the new LZO code and this LZ4 code, so that
> > > > > we can see whether it's worth updating the LZO code or replacing the
> > > > > LZO code with LZ4?
> > > >
> > > > How could it be questionable that it's worth updating the LZO code?
> > >
> > > Please read the comments against the previous posting of these patches
> > > where I first stated this argument - and with agreement from those
> > > following the thread. The thread started on 26 Jan 2013. Thanks.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/145
> >
> > I did not and do not see significant value in
> > adding LZ4 given Markus' LZO improvements.
>
> Sorry, a 66% increase in decompression speed over the updated LZO code
> isn't "significant value" ?
We disagree.
> I'm curious - what in your mind qualifies "significant value" ?
faster boot time. smaller, faster overall code.
> Maybe "significant value" is a patch which buggily involves converting
> all those "<n>" printk format strings in assembly files to KERN_* macros,
> thereby breaking those strings because you've not paid attention to what
> .asciz means? (Yes, I've just cleaned that crap up after you...)
If you mean commit 0cc41e4a21d43, perhaps you could clarify with an
example. I don't see any relevant changes by you in -next, but
maybe I'm not looking in the right spot.
The change did enable reducing code size.
> > Why would the LZO code not be updated?
> I'm not saying that the LZO code should not be updated.
You said:
> > > > > so that we can see whether it's worth updating the LZO code
Sounded as if you were doubtful to me.
> I'm saying that
> the kernel boot time decompressor is not a play ground for an ever
> increasing number of "my favourite compression method" crap.
Completely agree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists