Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932419AbVLVMwt (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932460AbVLVMwt (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:49 -0500 Received: from murder.univie.ac.at ([131.130.1.183]:59614 "EHLO imap1u.univie.ac.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932419AbVLVMws (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:48 -0500 From: Axel Kittenberger Organization: =?iso-8859-1?q?Universit=E4t?= Wien To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Possible Bootloader Optimization in inflate (get rid of unnecessary 32k Window) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:52:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512221352.23393.axel.kernel@kittenberger.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1657 Lines: 33 Hello, Whom do I talk to about acceptance of Patches in the Bootloader? I have seen, and coded once some time ago for priv. uses, do infalte the gziped linux kernel at boottime in "arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c" and " windowlib/inflate.c" the deflation algorthimn uses a 32k backtrack window. Whenever it is full, it copies it .... into the memory. While this window makes a lot of sense in an userspace application like gunzip, it does not make a lot sense in the bootloader. As userspace application the window is flushed to a file when full. The bootloader "flushes" it to memory (copies it in memory). That 1 time copy of the whole kernel can be optimized away, since we do not keep track of a window since the inflater can read what it has written right in the computer memory, while it unpacks the kernel. What would the optimization be worth? * A faster uncompressing of the kernel, since a total 1-time memcopy of the whole kernel is been optimized away. * I'm not sure about the size, the memory or disk footprint. If the 32k static (!) memory array in compressed/misc.c, I don't know if it safes 32k running memory, or 32k on-disk size. Since I don't know the indepth working of these. Before I code this again (I know that this optimization has worked with a 2.4 kernel), I want to ask, would such patch be accepted? now or once ever? who should I forward this? Greetings, Axel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/