Re: cleaner/better zlib sources?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > Hacked up test case below ...
> 
> This one seems to do benchmarking with 8MB buffers if I read it right 
> (didn't try).

Yes, I just wanted to have the biggest time spent in inflate(). That why I 
use a big buffer.


> The normal size for the performance-critical git objects are in the couple 
> of *hundred* bytes. Not kilobytes, and not megabytes.
> 
> The most performance-critical objects for uncompression are commits and 
> trees. At least for the kernel, the average size of a tree object is 678
> bytes. And that's ignoring the fact that most of them are then deltified, 
> so about 80% of them are likely just a ~60-byte delta.

Definitely. The nature of the data matters.
Did you try to make a zlib with my patch and oprofile git on real data 
with that?



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]