On Friday 25 May 2007 12:55:21 Daniel Hazelton wrote: <snip> > As to the performance - I can see absolutely no reason why the minimal > version shouldn't perform the same (or better). The kernel codes memset and > memcpy routines have been heavily tested *and* optimized over the years and > moving from macro's to inline functions shouldn't have impacted performance > at all. I will be testing the two code bases myself in a little bit - I'm > more than a little paranoid and don't like the idea of trusting anyone with > a "competing project" for all testing.
I'll have to better instrument my test code (a real quick (userspace) hack) using the minimized LZO1X implementation (take 4 :) and the complete LZOv2 library (lzo1x_1_11_compress and the *unsafe* version of the decompressor used) but preliminary testing using just "time ./test" - the differences I've seen might be because I'm directly including one version of the code and the other is in a shared library. But even if I discount the system and user time - going *only* by the "real" time value I get results across 10 runs that differ by less than 0.001s - the average across 10 runs of the stripped down LZO code is about 0.00133s where the LZO library (liblzo2) returns about even performance - average is 0.001s. A total difference of *ONE* *THIRD* of *ONE* *THOUSANDTH* of a second. With the better performance being in-kernel should bring, I can see no reason for a "big" difference. If anyone's interested in the code I used for the test, let me know and I'll make it available. DRH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
