[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7024fc31ccc9c8b8bdfe2865cdf3604079e0039.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:50:38 -0700
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Donglin Peng <dolinux.peng@...il.com>, ast@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>, Song
Liu <song@...nel.org>, pengdonglin <pengdonglin@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] btf: add CONFIG_BPF_SORT_BTF_BY_KIND_NAME
On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 17:39 +0800, Donglin Peng wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Kconfig b/kernel/bpf/Kconfig
> index eb3de35734f0..08251a250f06 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/Kconfig
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/Kconfig
> @@ -101,4 +101,12 @@ config BPF_LSM
>
> If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
>
> +config BPF_SORT_BTF_BY_KIND_NAME
> + bool "Sort BTF types by kind and name"
> + depends on BPF_SYSCALL
> + help
> + This option sorts BTF types in vmlinux and kernel modules by their
> + kind and name, enabling binary search for btf_find_by_name_kind()
> + and significantly improving its lookup performance.
> +
Why having this as an option?
There are no downsides to always enabling, right?
The cost of sorting btf at build time should be negligible.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists