SIMD-0287: Message Headers with Compute Budget Metadata

[cavemanloverboy]

Summary

We introduce three new (candidate) versions for transaction format aiming at
reducing the transaction footprint for compute budget instructions.

Motivation

The use of compute budget instructions has become ubiquitous. These instructions
currently have a nontrivial serialized footprint and are presently wasteful in
their implementation. The information in these instructions can be compacted
significantly, enabling users to fit a bit more data in their transaction payload.

Detailed Design

v1: Fixed Fields for Compute Unit Limit & Price

• Change: MessageHeader is extended to include two new fields:
  • compute_unit_price (u64)
  • compute_unit_limit (u32)
• Serialization: These fields are serialized immediately before the existing
  three u8 signature counters.

v2: Fixed Fields for Compute Unit Limit & Price, Loaded Data & Heap Requests

• Change: MessageHeader is extended to include four new fields:
  • compute_unit_price (u64)
  • compute_unit_limit (u32)
  • loaded_accounts_data_limit (u32)
  • requested_heap_bytes (u32)
• Serialization: These fields are serialized immediately before the existing
  three u8 signature counters.

v3: Dynamic Header

• Change: Introduce a new ComputeBudgetHeader struct at the front of the
  message, containing:
  • flags: u8 bitmask indicating which compute budget fields are present.
  • Optional fields (Option<u32> or Option<u64>) for the parameters
• Serialization:
  1. Emit flags byte.
  2. For each bit set in flags, serialize the corresponding field in order
     without additional tags.
  3. Follow with the existing MessageHeader (three u8 counters) and the
     rest of the message.

Importantly, this variant supports up to 8 compute budget ixs (reserved for future use).

Example

We consider v0 (existing), v1, v2, v3 message with noop (no instructions), cu limit + price, and all four existing compute budget instructions. These are the serialized footprints.

v0 noop                    = 70
v0 with cu limit + price   = 122
v0 with full cb ix set     = 138

v1 noop                    = 82
v1 with cu limit + price   = 82
v1 with full cb ix set     = 130

v2 noop                    = 90
v2 with cu limit + price   = 90
v2 with full cb ix set     = 90

v3 noop                    = 71
v3 with cu limit + price   = 83
v3 with full cb ix set     = 91

The code for this can be found here

[buffalu]

what're thoughts on the below? for future proof, is there a world where >8 compute-related operations take place?

#[repr(u8)]
enum ComputeBudgetOp {
    ComputeUnitPrice(u64),
    ComputeUnitLimit(u32),
    ...
}

ComputeBudgetHeader {
    // perhaps Vec encoded with u8 length discriminator instead of u64
    ops: Vec<ComputeBudgetOp>
}

[cavemanloverboy]

[cavemanloverboy]

in all seriousness, i think if we're worried about future proofing we can use a 16-bit flag

[cavemanloverboy]

this alternative repr is a bit wasteful bc every element comes with a discriminator, and you will need to check for dups. with the bitflag you get uniqueness for free and uniquely determines lenth + deserialization.

[buffalu]

edit: the optional fields confused me; thats for the API not for the serialization format. what you said makes sense to me

[Jac0xb]

ComputeBudget program instructions are a huge waste, transaction settings should be in the header. +1 also a good excuse to increment the ungodly V1 transaction enum to V2 transaction and stop confusing everyone.

[afalaleev]

It is possible to get access to Compute Budget instructions from a Solana Program

use solana_compute_budget_interface::check_id as check_compute_budget_id;
use solana_program::instruction::{
     get_processed_sibling_instruction, get_stack_height, TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT,
};
....
fn get_compute_budget_priority_fee() -> Result<u64, Error> {
    ...
    let is_root_transaction = get_stack_height() == TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT;
    if get_stack_height() != TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT {
        return Ok(0);
    }
    ......
    for idx in 0..N {
        let Some(ix) = get_processed_sibling_instruction(idx) else {
            break;
        };
        if !check_compute_budget_id(&ix.program_id) {
            continue;
        }
        ...
        // ok, this is a Compute Budget instruction

But MessageHeader isn't available on-chain.

Solana Programs already have this possibilities and build some logic around it.
What mechanics are suggested to replace the existing functionality?

[cavemanloverboy]

It is possible to get access to Compute Budget instructions from a Solana Program

use solana_compute_budget_interface::check_id as check_compute_budget_id;
use solana_program::instruction::{
     get_processed_sibling_instruction, get_stack_height, TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT,
};
....
fn get_compute_budget_priority_fee() -> Result<u64, Error> {
    ...
    let is_root_transaction = get_stack_height() == TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT;
    if get_stack_height() != TRANSACTION_LEVEL_STACK_HEIGHT {
        return Ok(0);
    }
    ......
    for idx in 0..N {
        let Some(ix) = get_processed_sibling_instruction(idx) else {
            break;
        };
        if !check_compute_budget_id(&ix.program_id) {
            continue;
        }
        ...
        // ok, this is a Compute Budget instruction

But MessageHeader isn't available on-chain.

Solana Programs already have this possibilities and build some logic around it. What mechanics are suggested to replace the existing functionality?

yea this is kind of a pain...

This is incredibly [REDACTED] but for backwards compatibility — similar to lookup tables — the instructions could be appended with equivalent compute budget instructions

[blockiosaurus]

This is great! A solid method for future proofing without breaking V0 IXes.

[Benhawkins18]

superseded