On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 03:30:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sept 2026 at 15:23, Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There might be more efficient ways to structure the considerable amount > > of data, like replacing "struct instruction" with "struct basic_block" > > or so, but it's hard to know whether that would be a net positive. > > Yeah, I was thinking that you'd only hash instructions as you find > them if they are obvious "I need this instruction", and then try to > hash them *again* if they are branch targets (and just have a "already > hashed" flag). > > That way random number instructions would not be on the hash - unless > they become branch targets. > > And you wouldn't ever really have to track any complicated decisions > (like that whole "basic block" thing - I agree that it's painful, > because the shape of a basic block will change over time as you find > branch targets). > > But not a big deal. More an idle thought brought on by that other > patch that changed the hash table size, and this discussion that was > talking about the hashing - or not hashing - of sections. > > So more of a "if it is easy and straightforward" kind of thing.
Obviously I defer to Josh on this, but it seems from what he said it's probably a little involved and maybe tricky to figure out how much impact it might have. Anyway v3 drops the relocation hash altogether so 1 out of 2 ain't bad ;) > > Linus -- Cheers, Lorenzo
