From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1YR1Xs-0005HZ-6t for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:44:16 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YR1Xq-0005Bu-9O for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:44:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YR1Xo-0006bI-Gb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:44:14 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]:43258) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YR1Xo-0006b9-AI for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:44:12 -0500 Received: by wggy19 with SMTP id y19so12615178wgg.10 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:44:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q2wrk8H0y1CyWnnt/avqW6SbCTi7SRJgrqOD5wrOF48=; b=lV+uqvm/yceu4zMGpyXCegIqn9q2jqNJCP33tiDMb2ztYgA/YGsuXN23j1fhi3cOe1 5oVxO02BxSvt8v22fB9u+TwtJofaq4hyVAp8WugSSf1UwLgrGaLv0CCwx7PFqMen+4Q1 K2kFRmSxUB67uo1CA81gfHXbcuSwa4XQW4NGAYWKWu8CxMaszCFY7dwQF6zDAaZ9Rn5y 0p4QWNjBKX7dOG07BdbPhBdavt95rLt9uB2cfm0xvnEca7n7LEFkLJEEPs8JFI8WSVVs zUyZs9eHdvd/Vadno5oOmx2A23OD0Q6bOHj6fznOo/PMLo1R83NSCP5nOy+x4oX3Eg3A QjXw== X-Received: by 10.180.8.10 with SMTP id n10mr17745029wia.79.1424969051550; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:0:105f:fd00:863a:4bff:fe50:abc4? ([2620:0:105f:fd00:863a:4bff:fe50:abc4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v5sm3556966wiw.24.2015.02.26.08.44.10 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:44:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54EF4D5B.6030305@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:44:11 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GNU GRUB Subject: Re: Image scaling performance References: <20150225154540.GR4278@bivouac.eciton.net> <20150225162352.GT4278@bivouac.eciton.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c00::230 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:44:15 -0000 On 25.02.2015 19:46, Michael Zimmermann wrote: > I'm still questioning the efficiency > math operations because on slow devices there are other bottlenecks of > the same kind(like de/compression). That's pure speculation at that point. GRUB has 3 compression algorithms: - minilzo. Has some divisions in parts which GRUB doesn't use. Those parts are easily disablable and I'll just do so. - gzip. Uses division only in zlib header check. I'll optimise it a little but it's only one division in header check, not in compressed data body. - xz. No divisions