Re: cleaner/better zlib sources?

From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Date: Mar 16, 2007, 16:24 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703160920030.13402@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703160913361.3816@woody.linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 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.

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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