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