Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update benchmarks for opcodes that somehow modify receipts #1414

Closed
xgreenx opened this issue Oct 11, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1454
Closed

Update benchmarks for opcodes that somehow modify receipts #1414

xgreenx opened this issue Oct 11, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1454
Assignees

Comments

@xgreenx
Copy link
Collaborator

xgreenx commented Oct 11, 2023

Problem overview

Opcodes: RET, BURN, MINT, SMO, LOG, LOGD, TR, TRO, RETD, RVRT, CALL; modifies receipts(usually add a new one). Each new receipt modifies BMT and slows down the addition of new receipts in the future. We need to update benchmarks to take that behavior into account.

Implementation details

Before running the benchmark for corresponding opcodes, we can fill the ReceiptsCtx with pre-defined receipts. The number of recipients should be realistic, and maybe we need to do some benchmarks to see the progression of the execution time. Without benchmarks maybe we can start with 100_000 or 1_000_000 receipts.

xgreenx added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
Closes #1414. Also does some
upgrades for latest `fuel-vm` version. Targets
FuelLabs/fuel-vm#625 currently, needs new
`fuel-vm` release after that is merged.


This also mostly reverts #1457
which was not working correctly, especially with regards to `call`
instruction.

---------

Co-authored-by: xgreenx <[email protected]>
crypto523 added a commit to crypto523/fuel-core that referenced this issue Oct 7, 2024
Closes FuelLabs/fuel-core#1414. Also does some
upgrades for latest `fuel-vm` version. Targets
FuelLabs/fuel-vm#625 currently, needs new
`fuel-vm` release after that is merged.


This also mostly reverts FuelLabs/fuel-core#1457
which was not working correctly, especially with regards to `call`
instruction.

---------

Co-authored-by: xgreenx <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants