On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 02:44:36PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > On 2022/10/26 1:53, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > This answers how we don't use a hash table, the question was *should* we > > use one? > > I'm not the original author, and I can only answer now based on my understanding. Maybe > the original author didn't think of the hash method, or he has weighed it out. > > Hash is a good solution if only performance is required and memory overhead is not > considered. Using hash will increase the memory size by up to "4 * kallsyms_num_syms + > 4 * ARRAY_SIZE(hashtable)" bytes, kallsyms_num_syms is about 1-2 million. > > Because I don't know what hash algorithm will be used, the cost of generating the > hash value corresponding to the symbol name is unknown now. But I think it's gonna > be small. But it definitely needs a simpler algorithm, the tool needs to implement > the same hash algorithm. For instance, you can look at evaluating if alloc_large_system_hash() would help. Luis
