Skip to content

A0-4022: Reduced multi block contract migration weight by 4 #2

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
Marcin-Radecki merged 2 commits into from
Feb 20, 2024
Merged

A0-4022: Reduced multi block contract migration weight by 4 #2

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4b39682
A0-4022: Reduced multi block contract migration weight by 4
Marcin-Radecki Feb 16, 2024
527688f
Previous approach was a no-op
Marcin-Radecki Feb 16, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions substrate/frame/contracts/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -411,8 +411,9 @@ pub mod pallet {
use migration::MigrateResult::*;

loop {
let (result, weight) = Migration::<T>::migrate(remaining_weight);
remaining_weight.saturating_reduce(weight);
const reduced_weight_factor: u64 = 4;
let (result, weight) = Migration::<T>::migrate(remaining_weight.saturating_div(reduced_weight_factor));
remaining_weight.saturating_reduce(weight.saturating_mul(reduced_weight_factor));
Copy link
Member

@pmikolajczyk41 pmikolajczyk41 Feb 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this saturating_reduce is weird xD it requires One and it's suspicious that it is more effective that saturating_sub (because that's my guess for the only reason for such a function)

Copy link

@DamianStraszak DamianStraszak Feb 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's actually less effective, it's only that saturating_sub outputs a value and saturating_reduce mutates self. But why the hell is saturating_reduce implemented the way it is I have no idea


match result {
// There is not enough weight to perform a migration, or make any progress, we
Copy link
Member

@pmikolajczyk41 pmikolajczyk41 Feb 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that this is actually not correct to return from on_idle in the first case of the match expression - we should try making some other work (like process_deletion_queue) - does this sound reasonable?

Copy link

@DamianStraszak DamianStraszak Feb 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are probably right, we could break instead, but it doesn't matter much anyway, as in practice the migration take just a few blocks of time

Expand Down