![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 5/30/07, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote: > 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. Unsafe vs safe is within 10%. Its okay. > 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. Not just numbers. Most of applications cannot afford to use unsafe versions anyway (like fs people). (well, the compressed-cache people might want those extra > usecs - but the difference will never be noticeable anywhere outside the > kernel) > > DRH > compressed cache people require every single percent of that performance. For now, ccaching is not ready for mainline (many things need to be done). So, till then I will keep off the unsafe version. If ever compressed caching is on its way to mainline _then_ I will try and add back the unsafe version. But I see no other project that really cares about unsafe version so it's okay to keep it off. - Nitin - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-30 05:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||