Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] x86: Add support for ZSTD-compressed kernel

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 05:22:00 +0100

* Adam Borowski <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Nick Terrell <[email-masked]>
> 
> Integrates the ZSTD decompression code to the x86 pre-boot code.
> 
> Zstandard requires slightly more memory during the kernel decompression
> on x86 (192 KB vs 64 KB), and the memory usage is independent of the
> window size.
> 
> Zstandard requires memory proportional to the window size used during
> compression for decompressing the ramdisk image, since streaming mode is
> used. Newer versions of zstd (1.3.2+) list the window size of a file
> with `zstd -lv <file>'. The absolute maximum amount of memory required
> is just over 8 MB.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nick Terrell <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  Documentation/x86/boot.txt        | 6 +++---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                  | 1 +
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile | 5 ++++-
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c   | 4 ++++
>  arch/x86/boot/header.S            | 8 +++++++-
>  arch/x86/include/asm/boot.h       | 6 ++++--
>  6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>

> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/header.S b/arch/x86/boot/header.S
> index 4c881c850125..af2efb256527 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/header.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/header.S
> @@ -526,8 +526,14 @@ pref_address:		.quad LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR	# preferred load addr
>  # the size-dependent part now grows so fast.
>  #
>  # extra_bytes = (uncompressed_size >> 8) + 65536
> +#
> +# ZSTD compressed data grows by at most 3 bytes per 128K, and only has a 22
> +# byte fixed overhead but has a maximum block size of 128K, so it needs a
> +# larger margin.
> +#
> +# extra_bytes = (uncompressed_size >> 8) + 131072
>  
> -#define ZO_z_extra_bytes	((ZO_z_output_len >> 8) + 65536)
> +#define ZO_z_extra_bytes	((ZO_z_output_len >> 8) + 131072)

This change would also affect other decompressors, not just ZSTD, 
correct?

Might want to split this change out into a separate preparatory patch to 
allow it to be bisected to, or at least mention it in the changelog more 
explicitly?

Thanks,

	Ingo