On 2013-02-26 18:28, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
> wrote:
>>
>> please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
>>
>> git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update
>
> I *really* want github (and other general hosting) pull requests to be
>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer
wrote:
>
> please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
>
> git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update
I *really* want github (and other general hosting) pull requests to be
for signed tags, so that I can see your gpg key and there
james northrup writes:
> looks like ARM results are inconclusive from a lot of folks without bandwidth
> to do a write-up, what about just plain STAGING status for ARM so the android
> tweakers can beat on it for a while?
Again staging doesn't really work for a core library, it's more
for sepa
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:55:06AM -0700, james northrup wrote:
>> looks like ARM results are inconclusive from a lot of folks without
>> bandwidth to do a write-up, what about just plain STAGING status for ARM so
>> the android tweakers can bea
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:55:06AM -0700, james northrup wrote:
> looks like ARM results are inconclusive from a lot of folks without
> bandwidth to do a write-up, what about just plain STAGING status for ARM so
> the android tweakers can beat on it for a while?
Staging only really works for new d
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I have locked the Allwinner A10 CPU in my Mele A2000 to 60 MHz using
>> cpufreq-set,
>> and ran your test. rnd.lzo is a 9 MB file from /dev/urandom compressed with
>> lzo.
>> There doesn't seem to be a significant difference between all three
> I have locked the Allwinner A10 CPU in my Mele A2000 to 60 MHz using
> cpufreq-set,
> and ran your test. rnd.lzo is a 9 MB file from /dev/urandom compressed with
> lzo.
> There doesn't seem to be a significant difference between all three variants.
I found that in compression benchmarks it dep
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:06:47 +0200
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> Well, ~2x speedup on x86 is certainly a good achievement, but there
> are more ARM based devices than there are PCs, and I guess many
> embedded devices use lzo compressed kernels and file systems
> while I'm not convinced many PCs r
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:48:49PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:20 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>If you think a little bit, I bet you could come up with a solution that
> >>operates at cacheline-aligned granularity, something that would be _even
> >>faster_ than simply fixing the code t
On 08/16/2012 12:20 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
If you think a little bit, I bet you could come up with a solution that
operates at cacheline-aligned granularity, something that would be _even
faster_ than simply fixing the code to do aligned accesses.
Cache aligned compression is unlikely to compres
> If you think a little bit, I bet you could come up with a solution that
> operates at cacheline-aligned granularity, something that would be _even
> faster_ than simply fixing the code to do aligned accesses.
Cache aligned compression is unlikely to compress anything at all.
Compression algori
On 08/16/2012 02:27 AM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
On 2012-08-15 16:45, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
On 2012-08-14 14:39, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrot
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 08:27:15AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> On 2012-08-15 16:45, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> >
> > I made the attached quick hack userspace code
> > using ARM kernel headers and barebox unlzop code.
> > (new == your new code, old == linux-3.5 git, test == new + your
On 2012-08-15 16:45, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>> On 2012-08-14 14:39, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhume
Hi Johannes,
On 2012-08-14 14:39, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>> On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>
>>> As stated in the README this version is significantly faster (typically more
>>> than 2 times faste
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> >
> > As stated in the README this version is significantly faster (typically more
> > than 2 times faster!) than the current version, has been thoroughly tested
> > on
On 2012-08-14 05:15, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO
>> code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
>>
>> git://github.com/markus-oberhumer
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO
> code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
>
> git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update
>
> You can browse the
18 matches
Mail list logo
