Re: kernel decompressor interface

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 10:45 am

On 03/30/2010 05:25 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote:

Well, it's adequate for the *current form* of initramfs decompression,
which is rather crippled: we fail to progressively free the memory used,
simply because we have no way to track it.

This is, in my opinion, a major shortcoming of the current implementation.


inflate has exactly the same behavior, except for the fact that the
standard zlib implementation maintains this state internally instead of
relying on being able to peek in the output buffer.  It's thus not an
inherent property of the compression algorithm.

The requirement that the output can't be processed incrementally is
another major disadvantage, which I'm not sure how to address (LZMA
requires insane amounts of memory if you don't let it use its output as
its look-behind buffer, which means that either for small or large
outputs we're wasting tons of memory -- in the former case with a
separate buffer and in the latter case with a "decompress all at once"
buffer.)

	-hpa
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: kernel decompressor interface, Phillip Lougher, (Tue Mar 30, 5:25 pm)
Re: kernel decompressor interface, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Mar 31, 10:45 am)
Re: kernel decompressor interface, Ferenc Wagner, (Thu Apr 1, 5:11 am)