Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> (generic) is with Matt's arch-independent patches applied. Profiling >> indicates that most of the overhead is actually with the lzo >> decompression... >> >> Also, with a simple module to memset64() a 1GB vmalloc'ed buffer, here >> are the results: >> generic: 0.245315533 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.83% ) >> optimized: 0.169282701 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.96% ) > > Great, that's pretty conclusive. > > I'm pretty sure I can take these 2 patches independently of Matt's > series, they just won't be used by much until his series goes in, so > I'll do that unless someone yells.
Hmm, just went to merge these, but I don't see Matt's series in linux-next, so I'll hold off for now. cheers
