performance: turn cache misses during assembly into cache hits during eval#4617
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
|
algorandskiy
reviewed
Oct 3, 2022
cce
reviewed
Oct 4, 2022
icorderi
force-pushed
the
feat/same-round-cache
branch
2 times, most recently
from
988803e to
93a1624
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4617 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 54.55% 54.37% -0.19%
==========================================
Files 414 407 -7
Lines 53607 52389 -1218
==========================================
- Hits 29244 28485 -759
+ Misses 21935 21525 -410
+ Partials 2428 2379 -49
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
icorderi
force-pushed
the
feat/same-round-cache
branch
from
93a1624 to
02dccd7
Compare
icorderi
force-pushed
the
feat/same-round-cache
branch
3 times, most recently
from
dcd4447 to
0c2e549
Compare
Contributor
algorandskiy
reviewed
Nov 3, 2022
Contributor
algorandskiy
left a comment
algorandskiy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please fix two remarks and this is good to go
icorderi
force-pushed
the
feat/same-round-cache
branch
from
0c2e549 to
974968e
Compare
icorderi
commented
Nov 4, 2022
algorandskiy
approved these changes
Nov 4, 2022
jannotti
reviewed
Nov 17, 2022
Contributor
jannotti
left a comment
jannotti
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this was already merged, but wanted to note a couple thnigs.
Biggest comment is on code that isn't here. Although boxes were rebased into this, I don't see the analogous changes for lrukv.go.
| return macct.AccountResource(), rnd, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // check baseAccoiunts again to see if it does not exist |
| return macct.accountData.GetLedgerCoreAccountData(), rnd, rewardsVersion, rewardsLevel, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // check baseAccoiunts again to see if it does not exist |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // clear the notFound list | ||
| m.notFound = make(map[basics.Address]struct{}, len(m.notFound)) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Supposedly, deleting in a loop over all keys is recognized by the compiler and optimized to be cheaper than reallocating. @cce posted something about it. https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/110055
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // clear the notFound list | ||
| m.notFound = make(map[accountCreatable]struct{}, len(m.notFound)) |
This was referenced Nov 21, 2022
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
The problem statement applies both to accounts and resources.
Additionally, we taught the LRU to track accounts and resources that were not found in the DB.
Thus avoiding repeated DB queries on objects that do not exist.
Test Plan
Benchmark on
scenario-1sWe run the scenario-1s with the default script and using a random destination (max200k) both on master and this branch.
The transactions per second (TPS) results are shown in figure 1.