Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:36:03 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels |
| |
On 01/29/2013 02:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:25:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> 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? > > Well... when I saw this my immediate reaction was "oh no, yet another > decompressor for the kernel". We have five of these things already. > Do we really need a sixth? > > My feeling is that we should have: > - one decompressor which is the fastest > - one decompressor for the highest compression ratio > - one popular decompressor (eg conventional gzip) > > And if we have a replacement one for one of these, then it should do > exactly that: replace it. I realise that various architectures will > behave differently, so we should really be looking at numbers across > several arches. > > Otherwise, where do we stop adding new ones? After we have 6 of these > (which is after this one). After 12? After the 20th? >
The only concern I have with that is if someone paints themselves into a corner and absolutely wants, say, LZO.
Otherwise, per your list it pretty much sounds like we should have lz4, gzip, and xz.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |