From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@oberhumer.com>
Cc: Johannes Stezenbach <js@sig21.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
chris.mason@fusionio.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@openedhand.com>,
richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Update LZO compression
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:21:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <502D100D.2030609@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502C92C3.7090701@oberhumer.com>
On 08/16/2012 02:27 AM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> On 2012-08-15 16:45, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-14 14:39, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As stated in the README this version is significantly faster (typically more
>>>>>> than 2 times faster!) than the current version, has been thoroughly tested on
>>>>>> x86_64/i386/powerpc platforms and is intended to get included into the
>>>>>> official Linux 3.6 or 3.7 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I encourage all compression users to test and benchmark this new version,
>>>>>> and I also would ask some official LZO maintainer to convert the updated
>>>>>> source files into a GIT commit and possibly push it to Linus or linux-next.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for not reporting earlier, but I didn't have time to do real
>>>> benchmarks, just a quick test on ARM926EJ-S using barebox,
>>>> and found in the new version decompression is slower:
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/barebox/2012-July/008268.html
>>>
>>> I can only guess, but maybe your ARM cpu does not have an efficient
>>> implementation of {get,put}_unaligned().
>>
>> Yes, ARMv5 cannot do unaligned access. ARMv6+ could, but
>> I think the Linux kernel normally traps it for debug,
>> all ARM seem to use generic {get,put}_unaligned() implementation
>> which use byte access and shift.
>
> Hmm - I could imagine that we're wasting a lot of possible speed gain
> by not exploiting that feature on ARMv6+.
Or you could just realize that unaligned accesses are slow in the best
case, and are simply not supported on some processors.
If you think a little bit, I bet you could come up with a solution that
operates at cacheline-aligned granularity, something that would be _even
faster_ than simply fixing the code to do aligned accesses.
Jeff
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jgarzik@pobox.com (Jeff Garzik)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] Update LZO compression
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:21:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <502D100D.2030609@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502C92C3.7090701@oberhumer.com>
On 08/16/2012 02:27 AM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> On 2012-08-15 16:45, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-14 14:39, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As stated in the README this version is significantly faster (typically more
>>>>>> than 2 times faster!) than the current version, has been thoroughly tested on
>>>>>> x86_64/i386/powerpc platforms and is intended to get included into the
>>>>>> official Linux 3.6 or 3.7 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I encourage all compression users to test and benchmark this new version,
>>>>>> and I also would ask some official LZO maintainer to convert the updated
>>>>>> source files into a GIT commit and possibly push it to Linus or linux-next.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for not reporting earlier, but I didn't have time to do real
>>>> benchmarks, just a quick test on ARM926EJ-S using barebox,
>>>> and found in the new version decompression is slower:
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/barebox/2012-July/008268.html
>>>
>>> I can only guess, but maybe your ARM cpu does not have an efficient
>>> implementation of {get,put}_unaligned().
>>
>> Yes, ARMv5 cannot do unaligned access. ARMv6+ could, but
>> I think the Linux kernel normally traps it for debug,
>> all ARM seem to use generic {get,put}_unaligned() implementation
>> which use byte access and shift.
>
> Hmm - I could imagine that we're wasting a lot of possible speed gain
> by not exploiting that feature on ARMv6+.
Or you could just realize that unaligned accesses are slow in the best
case, and are simply not supported on some processors.
If you think a little bit, I bet you could come up with a solution that
operates at cacheline-aligned granularity, something that would be _even
faster_ than simply fixing the code to do aligned accesses.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-16 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-13 23:44 [GIT PULL] Update LZO compression Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-14 3:15 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-14 10:10 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-14 12:39 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-14 12:39 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-15 12:02 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-15 12:02 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-15 14:45 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-15 14:45 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-16 6:27 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-16 6:27 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2012-08-16 15:06 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-16 15:06 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-16 17:25 ` Roman Mamedov
2012-08-16 17:25 ` Roman Mamedov
2012-08-16 17:52 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 17:52 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 18:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-08-16 18:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-08-16 18:55 ` james northrup
2012-08-16 22:17 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 22:17 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-17 1:23 ` Mitch Harder
2012-08-17 1:23 ` Mitch Harder
2012-09-07 21:31 ` Andi Kleen
2012-09-07 21:31 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 18:57 ` james northrup
2012-08-16 15:21 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2012-08-16 15:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-08-16 16:20 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 16:20 ` Andi Kleen
2012-08-16 16:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-08-16 16:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-08-16 17:22 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2012-08-16 17:22 ` Johannes Stezenbach
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=502D100D.2030609@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=chris.mason@fusionio.com \
--cc=js@sig21.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markus@oberhumer.com \
--cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=rpurdie@openedhand.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.