Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Daniel Hazelton <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6 | | Date | Tue, 29 May 2007 19:32:03 -0400 | |
I just noticed a bug in my testbed/benchmarking code. It's fixed, but I
decided to compare version 6 of the code against the *unsafe* decompressor
again. The results of the three runs I've put it through after changing it to
compare against the unsafe decompressor were startling. `Tiny's` compressor
is still faster - I've seen it be rated up to 3% faster. The decompressor,
OTOH, when compared to the unsafe version (which is the comparison that
started me on this binge of hacking), is more than 7% worse. About 11% slower
on the original test against a C source file, and about 6% slower for random
data. However, looking at the numbers involved, I can't see a reason to keep
the unsafe version around - the percentages look worse than they are - from 1
to 3 microseconds. (well, the compressed-cache people might want those extra
usecs - but the difference will never be noticeable anywhere outside the
kernel)
DRH
[unhandled content-type:application/x-tbz] |  |