On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 10:45 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 22:36:56 +0800 > Menglong Dong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, this seems to make more sense. And I'll send a V2 > > > later. > > > > > > BTW, Should we still keep the "size = min(size, 32)" logic > > > > Oops, I mean "size = max(size, 32); size = fls(size);" here :/ > > > > > to avoid the hash bits being too small, just like the origin > > > logic in "dup_hash"? > > > > > If you have 5 functions, why do you need more that 5 buckets? > > size = 5; > size = max(5, 32); // size = 32 > size = fls(size); // size = 5 > alloc_ftrace_hash(size); > > size = 1 << size; // size = 32 > hash->buckets = kcalloc(size, ...); > > Now you have 32 buckets for 5 functions. Why waste the memory? > > If you add more functions, the hash bucket size will get updated.
Yeah, I see. The hash bucket will be reallocated when we add more functions to the direct_funtions, so it is not necessary to make the budget size large here. Thanks! Menglong Dong > > -- Steve
