[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1gisUFzgt1D1Jle@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:53:53 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] kallsyms: Optimizes the performance of lookup
symbols
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:11:58PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/10/19 20:01, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:49:39PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> Currently, to search for a symbol, we need to expand the symbols in
> >> 'kallsyms_names' one by one, and then use the expanded string for
> >> comparison. This is very slow.
> >>
> >> In fact, we can first compress the name being looked up and then use
> >> it for comparison when traversing 'kallsyms_names'.
> >>
> >> This patch series optimizes the performance of function kallsyms_lookup_name(),
> >> and function klp_find_object_symbol() in the livepatch module. Based on the
> >> test results, the performance overhead is reduced to 5%. That is, the
> >> performance of these functions is improved by 20 times.
> >
> > Stupid question, is a hash table in order?
>
> No hash table.
>
> All symbols are arranged in ascending order of address. For example: cat /proc/kallsyms
>
> The addresses of all symbols are stored in kallsyms_addresses[], and names of all symbols
> are stored in kallsyms_names[]. The elements in these two arrays are in a one-to-one
> relationship. For any symbol, it has the same index in both arrays.
>
> Therefore, when we look up a symbolic name based on an address, we use a binary lookup.
> However, when we look up an address based on a symbol name, we can only traverse array
> kallsyms_names[] in sequence. I think the reason why hash is not used is to save memory.
This answers how we don't use a hash table, the question was *should* we
use one?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists