|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
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
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
|
By
kyungsik.lee <kyungsik.lee@...>
·
#840
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Yes. However, it makes it more questionable to simply rip out
compression methods without warning. Not that warnings help, as we have
learned.
-hpa
Yes. However, it makes it more questionable to simply rip out
compression methods without warning. Not that warnings help, as we have
learned.
-hpa
|
By
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
·
#839
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
The fact that you are aware of it means we're not going to break them.
But my point is that we must not be held back just in case someone out
there might have painted himself in a corner without
The fact that you are aware of it means we're not going to break them.
But my point is that we must not be held back just in case someone out
there might have painted himself in a corner without
|
By
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...>
·
#838
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
I think they can be fairly flexible. Obviously gzip is always
supported. I don't know the details.
Well, it is too nasty for public confession, but it's called
"paravirtualization".
-hpa
I think they can be fairly flexible. Obviously gzip is always
supported. I don't know the details.
Well, it is too nasty for public confession, but it's called
"paravirtualization".
-hpa
|
By
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
·
#837
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Are you kidding?
And what format do they expect?
If people are doing weird things with formats we're about to remove then
it's their fault if they didn't make upstream developers aware of it.
And
Are you kidding?
And what format do they expect?
If people are doing weird things with formats we're about to remove then
it's their fault if they didn't make upstream developers aware of it.
And
|
By
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...>
·
#836
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Some utterly weird things like the Xen domain builder do that, because
they have to. That is why we explicitly document that the payload is
ELF and how to access it in the bzImage spec.
-hpa
Some utterly weird things like the Xen domain builder do that, because
they have to. That is why we explicitly document that the payload is
ELF and how to access it in the bzImage spec.
-hpa
|
By
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
·
#835
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
That would be hard to justify given that the kernel provides its own
decompressor code, making the compression format transparent to
bootloaders, etc. And no one should be poking into the
That would be hard to justify given that the kernel provides its own
decompressor code, making the compression format transparent to
bootloaders, etc. And no one should be poking into the
|
By
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...>
·
#834
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
This reminded me to check the status of the lzo update and it
seems it got lost?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/144
(Cc: added, I hope Markus still cares and someone could
eventually take his patch
This reminded me to check the status of the lzo update and it
seems it got lost?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/144
(Cc: added, I hope Markus still cares and someone could
eventually take his patch
|
By
Johannes Stezenbach <js@...>
·
#833
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
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
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
|
By
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
·
#832
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Ok.
We already have:
- lzma: 33% smaller than gzip, decompression speed between gzip and bzip2
- xz: 30% smaller than gzip, decompression speed similar to lzma
- bzip2: 10% smaller than gzip,
Ok.
We already have:
- lzma: 33% smaller than gzip, decompression speed between gzip and bzip2
- xz: 30% smaller than gzip, decompression speed similar to lzma
- bzip2: 10% smaller than gzip,
|
By
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...>
·
#831
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2013, 10:15:49 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
the problem gets more complicated as the "fastest" decompressor usually
creates larger images which need more time to load
Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2013, 10:15:49 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
the problem gets more complicated as the "fastest" decompressor usually
creates larger images which need more time to load
|
By
Egon Alter <egon.alter@...>
·
#830
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
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
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
|
By
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...>
·
#829
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
In the embedded space, quick boot is a really important feature to
have. Many people resort to awful hacks in order to improve boot time,
and so I would welcome this option.
I have seen arm systems
In the embedded space, quick boot is a really important feature to
have. Many people resort to awful hacks in order to improve boot time,
and so I would welcome this option.
I have seen arm systems
|
By
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...>
·
#828
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Uhm... you're saying we have to be at one extreme or the other?
We probably could drop the legacy lzma format, but someone might rely on it.
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...> wrote:
--
Sent from my
Uhm... you're saying we have to be at one extreme or the other?
We probably could drop the legacy lzma format, but someone might rely on it.
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...> wrote:
--
Sent from my
|
By
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
·
#827
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
I'm guessing this is referring to commit 5010192d5a.
Well, we used to have only one compressed format. Now we have nearly
half a dozen, with the same worthiness issue between themselves.
Either
I'm guessing this is referring to commit 5010192d5a.
Well, we used to have only one compressed format. Now we have nearly
half a dozen, with the same worthiness issue between themselves.
Either
|
By
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...>
·
#826
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Yes, exactly. If the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
then it is expected more boot-time improvement by LZ4-decompressor.
Currently there are two architectures which support it
Yes, exactly. If the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
then it is expected more boot-time improvement by LZ4-decompressor.
Currently there are two architectures which support it
|
By
kyungsik.lee <kyungsik.lee@...>
·
#825
·
|
|
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels
Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@...> 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,
Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@...> 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,
|
By
Andrew Morton
·
#824
·
|
|
ELC schedule available - technical showcase proposals wanted
Hi everyone,
The schedule for Embedded Linux Conference is now available at:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/embedded-linux-conference/schedule
ELC is February 20-22 in San Francisco.
Hi everyone,
The schedule for Embedded Linux Conference is now available at:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/embedded-linux-conference/schedule
ELC is February 20-22 in San Francisco.
|
By
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>
·
#823
·
|
|
Videos of the Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2012
Greetings,
Here are the videos of the latest edition of the Embedded Linux
Conference Europe (ELC-E):
http://free-electrons.com/blog/elce-2012-videos/
Make sure you don't miss the upcoming ELC next
Greetings,
Here are the videos of the latest edition of the Embedded Linux
Conference Europe (ELC-E):
http://free-electrons.com/blog/elce-2012-videos/
Make sure you don't miss the upcoming ELC next
|
By
Michael Opdenacker
·
#822
·
|
|
[PATCH v3] Sample misc loop driver (was LDT - Linux Driver Template)
From: Constantine Shulyupin <const@...>
misc_loop_drv - simple sample driver with validation script.
It implements loopback device with blocking and
nonblocking read and write file
From: Constantine Shulyupin <const@...>
misc_loop_drv - simple sample driver with validation script.
It implements loopback device with blocking and
nonblocking read and write file
|
By
Constantine Shulyupin
·
#821
·
|