Skip to content

core/vm: implement contract pool #32009

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MatusKysel
Copy link
Contributor

Optimize Contract Pool Implementation

@rjl493456442 rjl493456442 self-assigned this Jun 11, 2025
@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

Deployed on 5 and 6. Let's see the impact of this change first.

@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

截屏2025-06-24 20 03 05 截屏2025-06-24 20 03 22 截屏2025-06-24 20 04 20

@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

The PR is slightly faster. The higher IOWait should be relevant with the pebble change (low the compaction debt), I guess it's not relevant with this PR.

@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

rjl493456442 commented Jun 25, 2025

[[ PR ]]
截屏2025-06-25 11 34 36

[[ MASTER ]]
截屏2025-06-25 11 34 46

No big difference?

I can't reproduce the big difference in the flame graph you mentioned in the BSC PR

@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

[[ PR ]]

截屏2025-06-25 11 37 52

[[ MASTER ]]
截屏2025-06-25 11 38 31

@MatusKysel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @rjl493456442 can you check specifically vm.NewContract call in pprof? also it might be less significant for ETH right now as we have higher TPS

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants