On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:20:35AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > As long as the maximum numbers > > of iclogs is relatively slow and/or the default is close to the maximum > > this seems optimal. If we every support a very huge number or default > > to something much lower than the default a separate allocation would > > be better here, but that's a trivial change. > > Well, unless we decide in the future to increase the number of iclogs, this > seems doable, and the iclogs pointers array will fit into its own cache line, > eliminating the problem pointed by Dave. Even for a modest increase of iclog that seems fine (and I think Dave at least had vague plans to increas the numbers). And if we get a huge increase we'll just switch to a dynamically allocated array, which is also trivial. > I can do the work if we agree this can be useful somehow, at this point I'm > wondering if change this will actually improve anything :/ The question of what's the point is why I gave up multiple attempts to clean this up after running into issues with my initial idea :)
