Tao Zhu

> A lot of this looks good, but the further I get into review, the more I think this implementation gets simpler and more performant if we use a fixed-size...

The PR is refreshed with all the pending changes, still need to nurse it through CI, but it is good for review. @CriesofCarrots @carllin @jdavis103

> I'm not sure what your CI failure is about... Just force pushed a fix. Changes made to async `update(...)` resulted threads sync issue in a test. I went ok...

The first paragraph needs to be updated, mainly to replace term `additional fee` with `compute-unit price` (aka prioritization fee), as it has been changed since the original proposal. Perhaps something...

> 2. If `T1` cannot be processed before `T2` because there's already a transaction currently being processed that contends on an account `A`, then `T2` should not be scheduled if...

> This will need a feature gate right? It will affect replay when we check the cost model there #29595 is currently blocked per [feature schedule](https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/wiki/Feature-Gate-Activation-Schedule). But if it lands...

> > > This will need a feature gate right? It will affect replay when we check the cost model there > > > > > > #29595 is currently...

close it, will be addressed in other changes

Hey @mschneider, good to have your inputs. The easy one first: this doesn't aim to fix but to encourage requesting accurate, or at least more reasonable, CU limit. I'd guess...

Yea, a in-between value does sound safe / comfortable, but replacing one fraction unit with another fraction unit doesn't sound like final solution, tbh. I'd be arguing that 10Sol/week has...