On 2024/10/03 13:47, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
I agree that the overhead will be much less visible in real workloads.
+1 to use a smaller block (i.e. 8kB).
+1
It's easy to backpatch to old
branches (if we agree)
+1
It seems that
only reorderbuffer.c uses the LARGE macro so that it can be removed.
I'm going to keep the LARGE macro since extensions might be using it.
Yes, for the back-patch. But in the master branch,
we basically don't need to maintain this kind of compatibility?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
