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

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 933 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: lzo1x-test-6a.tar.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/x-tbz, Size: 28091 bytes --]