Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels

[kyungsik.lee]

On 2013-01-30 ìì 6:09, Rajesh Pawar wrote:
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:50:43 +0900
> > Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > This patchset is for supporting LZ4 compressed kernel and initial ramdisk on
> > > the x86 and ARM architectures.
> > >
> > > According to [[http://code.google.com/p/lz4/,]] LZ4 is a very fast lossless
> > > compression algorithm and also features an extremely fast decoder.
> > >
> > > Kernel Decompression APIs are based on implementation by Yann Collet
> > > ([[http://code.google.com/p/lz4/source/checkout]]).
> > > De/compression Tools are also provided from the site above.
> > >
> > > The initial test result on ARM(v7) based board shows that the size of kernel
> > > with LZ4 compressed is 8% bigger than LZO compressed but the decompressing
> > > speed is faster(especially under the enabled unaligned memory access).
> > >
> > > Test: 3.4 based kernel built with many modules
> > > Uncompressed kernel size: 13MB
> > > lzo: 6.3MB, 301ms
> > > lz4: 6.8MB, 251ms(167ms, with enabled unaligned memory access)
> > >
> > > It seems that it___s worth trying LZ4 compressed kernel image or ramdisk
> > > for making the kernel boot more faster.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 20 files changed, 663 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > ...
> > What's this "with enabled unaligned memory access" thing? You mean "if
> > the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS"? If so,
> > that's only x86, which isn't really in the target market for this
> > patch, yes?
> > It's a lot of code for a 50ms boot-time improvement. Does anyone have
> > any opinions on whether or not the benefits are worth the cost?
> BTW, what happened to the proposed LZO update - woudn't it better to merge this first?
>
> Also, under the hood LZ4 seems to be quite similar to LZO, so probably
> LZO speed would also greatly benefit from unaligned access and some other
> ARM optimisations
>   
I didn't test with the proposed LZO update you mentioned. Sorry, which 
one do you mean?
I did some tests with the latest LZO in the mainline.

As a result, LZO is not faster in an unaligned access enabled on ARM. 
Actually Slower.

Decompression time: 336ms(383ms, with unaligned access enabled)

You may refer to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/7/85 to know more about it.

Thanks,
Kyungsik


Thanks,
Kyungsik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/