From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:15:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130129101549.GP23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130128142510.68092e10.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:25:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> What's this "with enabled unaligned memory access" thing? You mean "if
> the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS"? If so,
> that's only x86, which isn't really in the target market for this
> patch, yes?
>
> It's a lot of code for a 50ms boot-time improvement. Does anyone have
> any opinions on whether or not the benefits are worth the cost?
Well... when I saw this my immediate reaction was "oh no, yet another
decompressor for the kernel". We have five of these things already.
Do we really need a sixth?
My feeling is that we should have:
- one decompressor which is the fastest
- one decompressor for the highest compression ratio
- one popular decompressor (eg conventional gzip)
And if we have a replacement one for one of these, then it should do
exactly that: replace it. I realise that various architectures will
behave differently, so we should really be looking at numbers across
several arches.
Otherwise, where do we stop adding new ones? After we have 6 of these
(which is after this one). After 12? After the 20th?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-29 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-26 5:50 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels Kyungsik Lee
2013-01-26 5:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] decompressors: add lz4 decompressor module Kyungsik Lee
2013-01-26 5:50 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] lib: add support for LZ4-compressed kernels Kyungsik Lee
2013-01-26 5:50 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] arm: " Kyungsik Lee
2013-01-26 5:50 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86: " Kyungsik Lee
2013-01-28 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add " Andrew Morton
2013-01-29 1:16 ` kyungsik.lee
2013-01-29 4:29 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-01-29 6:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 10:23 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2013-02-04 2:02 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2013-02-04 10:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-05 11:39 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2013-01-29 7:26 ` Richard Cochran
2013-01-29 10:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2013-01-29 11:43 ` Egon Alter
2013-01-29 12:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-01 8:15 ` kyungsik.lee
2013-01-30 3:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 18:33 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-01-31 21:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-31 22:16 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-01-31 22:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-01 2:28 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-01 6:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29 21:09 ` Rajesh Pawar
2013-02-01 7:00 ` kyungsik.lee
2013-02-04 1:37 ` Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
2013-01-29 22:55 ` David Sterba
2013-01-30 4:03 ` 이경식
2013-01-30 4:27 ` 이경식
2013-02-01 7:13 ` kyungsik.lee
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=20130129101549.GP23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).