Re: [RFC] [-mm] Remove 'unsafe' LZO decompressor

[Richard Purdie <richard@openedhand.com>]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 11:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:15:17 +0100
> Michael-Luke Jones <mlj28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 		
> > Attached is a patch which may be desirable for -mm. It applies  
> > directly to 2.6.22-rc2-mm1.
> > 
> > The patch removes the 'unsafe' LZO decompression function, lowering  
> > the size of the minilzo.c file by nearly 500 out of an original 1727  
> > lines. It also removes references to the 'unsafe' decompression  
> > function in the public LZO header and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL declaration.
[...]
> > Comments / disagreement all welcome :)
> 
> This is obviously a highly desirable thing to do for a number of reasons. 
> But have we quantified the performance difference?

Ok, I've done some tests: 

1. Comparing the safe and unsafe functions

For my minilzo kernel patch, the safe version showed a 7.2% performance
hit. For Nitin's patch, it showed a 3.2% performance hit (but see
below).

Could be a lot worse and I don't object to the removal of the unsafe
version.

2. Comparing Nitin's code with my minilzo based kernel patch.

My kernel patch is about 2.25 times faster at decompression (16725Kb/ms
vs 7399Kb/ms) and fractionally faster at compression (1434kb/ms vs
1490kb/ms). As things stand the performance of Nitin's patch is
therefore unacceptable as that is a significant decompression
performance loss.

These tests are on 32 bit Intel and in userspace but I've found them to
be a pretty good indicator of what happens in the real world and on
other architectures. 
For simplicity I made these tests with some existing code I had around
but its licence is such I can't share it, much to my frustration.

Cheers,

Richard

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/