On 5/29/07, Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is tester code used for testing. > (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6' > version for 'TinyLZO') > > Cheers, > Nitin > > On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (Using tester program from Daniel) > > > > Following compares this kernel port ('take 6') vs original miniLZO code: > > > > 'TinyLZO' refers to this kernel port. > > > > 10000 run averages: > > 'Tiny LZO': > > Combined: 61.2223 usec > > Compression: 41.8412 usec > > Decompression: 19.3811 usec > > 'miniLZO': > > Combined: 66.0444 usec > > Compression: 46.6323 usec > > Decompression: 19.4121 usec > > > > Result: > > Overall: TinyLZO is 7.3% faster > > Compressor: TinyLZO is 10.2% faster > > Decompressor: TinyLZO is 0.15% faster > > > >10000 run averages: 'Tiny LZO': Combined: 112.6642 usec Compression: 56.3321 usec Decompression: 56.3321 usec 'miniLZO': Combined: 77.6642 usec Compression: 56.3416 usec Decompression: 21.3226 usec now the interesting bit I thought was the following [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/lzo1x-test-4# ./fulltest [test_lzo.c::compress (93)] run took 42 microseconds [test_lzo.c::decompress (127)] run took 20 microseconds [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/lzo1x-test-4# ./tinytest [test.c::compress (91)] run took 44 microseconds [test.c::decompress (117)] BUG: lzo1x_decompress has failed ( t == -6 ) [test.c::main (149)] BUG: Decompression routine failure
Did you use x86 for above test? Maybe some problem with testing script? What data did you use for this test? - Nitin - 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/
