Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755490AbZKMPqj (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:46:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753957AbZKMPqe (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:46:34 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:34270 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753333AbZKMPqd (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:46:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:45:13 +0000 From: Russell King To: Albin Tonnerre Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Add support for LZO-compressed kernels Message-ID: <20091113154513.GD27752@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1257942478-18719-1-git-send-email-albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com> <1257942478-18719-2-git-send-email-albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1257942478-18719-2-git-send-email-albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1515 Lines: 38 On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:27:55PM +0100, Albin Tonnerre wrote: > This is the first part of the lzo patch > The lzo compressor is worse than gzip at compression, but faster at > extraction. Here are some figures for an ARM board I'm working on: > > Uncompressed size: 3.24Mo > gzip 1.61Mo 0.72s > lzo 1.75Mo 0.48s >From my testing on a Cortex A9 model: - lzo decompressor is 65% of the time gzip takes to decompress a kernel - lzo kernel is 9% larger than a gzip kernel which I'm happy to say confirms your figures when comparing the two. However, when comparing your new gzip code to the old gzip code: - new is 99% of the size of the old code - new takes 42% of the time to decompress than the old code What this means is that for a proper comparison, the results get even better: - lzo is 7.5% larger than the old gzip'd kernel image - lzo takes 28% of the time that the old gzip code took So the expense seems definitely worth the effort. The only reason I can think of ever using gzip would be if you needed the additional compression (eg, because you have limited flash to store the image.) I would argue that the default for ARM should therefore be LZO. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- 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/