Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 10:40:31 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is tester code used for testing.
> (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6'
> version for 'TinyLZO')
>
> Cheers,
> Nitin
>

<snip>
I haven't tested with version 6, but after removing the LZO_CHECK_MPOS_NON_DET
macro from the 'take 5' code and replacing the open-coded byte-for-byte
copies with calls to memcpy:


I did memcpy() changes in some initial post (take '2', I think). That
caused some _correctness_ issue in de/compressor code -- Bret's test
could not succeed on ppc machine. After going back to byte-by-byte
copying, his tests were successful.

So, it's better not to include such changes now or test on all
supported archs if you really want to do so :)

10000 run averages:
'Tiny LZO':
        Combined: 57.4691 usec
        Compression: 39.8837 usec
        Decompression: 17.5854 usec
'miniLZO':
        Combined: 64.0484 usec
        Compression: 46.0604 usec
        Decompression: 17.988 usec

which means:
Overall TinyLZO is 10.2% faster
TinyLZO compresses 13.4% faster
TinyLZO decompresses 2.23% faster

-Benchmark run a a Pentium-M 1.73GHz, 1GB Ram
With the speed-up seen with just the removal of the LZO_CHECK_MPOS_NON_DET I
wasn't sure that changing the open-coded copy to a call to memcpy() was going
to have a big impact on the code, but it does appear to have has several
percentage points of difference.

Yes, memcpy() changes have potential of giving significant perf gain
but I am not too sure if memcpy() will be good if we want to copy just
few bytes (which is the case at many times in de/compressor). Also, at
some places, memcpy() changes are not trival and have actually caused
correctness issues as mentioned above.

So, before this change, it will be good if it gets merged in mainline
and tested, at least for correctness, on all supported achs. All the
while, we will have a good feeling that there is still a good scope
for perf improvement :)


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

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux