* Drop support to compressed modules?
@ 2012-09-21 21:41 Lucas De Marchi
2012-09-22 18:08 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-23 13:28 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lucas De Marchi @ 2012-09-21 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: linux-modules, Lucas De Marchi, Kay Sievers, Dave Reisner
Hey,
I'd like to ask people the following question: why are you using
compressed modules? Is it only for the disk space or is there any
performance related reason?
While fixing a bug in kmod related to using compressed modules (that
already existed in module-init-tools) we stopped to think about these
questions. Dave made a couple of benchmarks and performance wise it's
better to use uncompressed modules than modules with gz or xz
compression. However the benchmark was done in only 1 computer. I do
expect people with slow storage to have different numbers though. Does
anyone have these numbers?
About the bug, I think it's fixed in
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-modules/msg00846.html. Need to test
a bit more before rolling out a new release.
Regards,
Lucas De Marchi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Drop support to compressed modules?
2012-09-21 21:41 Drop support to compressed modules? Lucas De Marchi
@ 2012-09-22 18:08 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-23 13:28 ` Jan Engelhardt
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2012-09-22 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lucas De Marchi
Cc: LKML, linux-modules, Lucas De Marchi, Kay Sievers, Dave Reisner
[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 272 bytes --]
On Friday 21 September 2012 17:41:44 Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> I'd like to ask people the following question: why are you using
> compressed modules? Is it only for the disk space or is there any
> performance related reason?
i've only seen it to save on disk space
-mike
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Drop support to compressed modules?
2012-09-21 21:41 Drop support to compressed modules? Lucas De Marchi
2012-09-22 18:08 ` Mike Frysinger
@ 2012-09-23 13:28 ` Jan Engelhardt
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2012-09-23 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lucas De Marchi
Cc: LKML, linux-modules, Lucas De Marchi, Kay Sievers, Dave Reisner
On Friday 2012-09-21 23:41, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
>While fixing a bug in kmod related to using compressed modules (that
>already existed in module-init-tools) we stopped to think about these
>questions. Dave made a couple of benchmarks and performance wise it's
>better to use uncompressed modules than modules with gz or xz
>compression. However the benchmark was done in only 1 computer. I do
>expect people with slow storage to have different numbers though. Does
>anyone have these numbers?
What benchmark should be run?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-23 13:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-09-21 21:41 Drop support to compressed modules? Lucas De Marchi
2012-09-22 18:08 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-23 13:28 ` Jan Engelhardt
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).