Skip to content

core/vm: hoist jumptable nil-check out of the interpreter loop #32068

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

core/vm: hoist jumptable nil-check out of the interpreter loop #32068

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+7 −5

Conversation

omerfirmak
Copy link
Contributor

@omerfirmak omerfirmak commented Jun 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

simple enough. benchmark of a dummy EVM loop shows ~%2 speed up on my machine.

@omerfirmak omerfirmak requested a review from rjl493456442 as a code owner June 20, 2025 11:46
fjl
fjl reviewed Jun 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
core/vm/interpreter.go
stack = newstack() // local stack
callContext = &ScopeContext{
op OpCode // current opcode
jumpTable *JumpTable = in.table
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder why it's a pointer at all

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess to avoid 2KB copies on each interpreter creation.

@fjl
Copy link
Contributor

fjl commented Jun 20, 2025

Please post benchstat comparison.

@omerfirmak
Copy link
Contributor Author

omerfirmak commented Jun 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading 

goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/vm
cpu: AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with Radeon Graphics         
        │   old.txt   │              new.txt               │
        │   sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base               │
Loop-16   193.9n ± 4%   184.3n ± 2%  -4.95% (p=0.000 n=10)

        │  old.txt   │            new.txt             │
        │    B/op    │    B/op     vs base            │
Loop-16   0.000 ± 0%   0.000 ± 0%  ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
¹ all samples are equal

        │  old.txt   │            new.txt             │
        │ allocs/op  │ allocs/op   vs base            │
Loop-16   0.000 ± 0%   0.000 ± 0%  ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
¹ all samples are equal

"op" here is a 100 gas worth of execution.

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden self-assigned this Jun 26, 2025
@omerfirmak
Copy link
Contributor Author

apparently there is an already existing VM benchmark in the repo. Will remove the one added here.

goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/vm/runtime
cpu: AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with Radeon Graphics         
                                       │   old.txt   │               new.txt               │
                                       │   sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base                │
SimpleLoop/staticcall-identity-100M-16   313.4m ± 4%   276.9m ± 9%  -11.64% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-identity-100M-16         365.4m ± 3%   334.7m ± 1%   -8.40% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop-100M-16                  395.6m ± 3%   292.7m ± 1%  -26.01% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop2-100M-16                 336.1m ± 7%   314.1m ± 0%   -6.54% (p=0.023 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-nonexist-100M-16         712.9m ± 3%   656.9m ± 0%   -7.86% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-EOA-100M-16              287.3m ± 7%   269.8m ± 1%   -6.10% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-reverting-100M-16        557.5m ± 2%   539.5m ± 3%   -3.23% (p=0.001 n=10)
geomean                                  403.4m        362.0m       -10.26%

                                       │    old.txt    │               new.txt                │
                                       │     B/op      │     B/op      vs base                │
SimpleLoop/staticcall-identity-100M-16   67.95Mi ±  0%   67.95Mi ± 0%        ~ (p=0.441 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-identity-100M-16         66.58Mi ±  0%   66.58Mi ± 0%        ~ (p=0.204 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop-100M-16                  5.906Ki ±  4%   5.175Ki ± 2%  -12.38% (p=0.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop2-100M-16                 5.359Ki ± 10%   5.273Ki ± 4%        ~ (p=0.585 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-nonexist-100M-16         119.6Mi ±  0%   119.6Mi ± 0%        ~ (p=0.128 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-EOA-100M-16              22.79Mi ±  0%   22.79Mi ± 0%        ~ (p=0.515 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-reverting-100M-16        163.8Mi ±  0%   163.8Mi ± 0%   -0.00% (p=0.002 n=10)
geomean                                  4.826Mi         4.725Mi        -2.10%

                                       │   old.txt   │              new.txt               │
                                       │  allocs/op  │  allocs/op   vs base               │
SimpleLoop/staticcall-identity-100M-16   2.740M ± 0%   2.740M ± 0%       ~ (p=0.577 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-identity-100M-16         2.685M ± 0%   2.685M ± 0%       ~ (p=0.837 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop-100M-16                   42.00 ± 2%    40.50 ± 1%  -3.57% (p=0.001 n=10)
SimpleLoop/loop2-100M-16                  40.50 ± 4%    41.00 ± 2%       ~ (p=1.000 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-nonexist-100M-16         2.985M ± 0%   2.985M ± 0%  -0.00% (p=0.044 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-EOA-100M-16              746.3k ± 0%   746.3k ± 0%       ~ (p=0.139 n=10)
SimpleLoop/call-reverting-100M-16        2.858M ± 0%   2.858M ± 0%  -0.00% (p=0.001 n=10)
geomean                                  96.80k        96.47k       -0.34%

MariusVanDerWijden
MariusVanDerWijden approved these changes Jun 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

SGTM, pretty crazy that this has such a big impact in the benchmarks

@MariusVanDerWijden
Copy link
Member

Deployed on 07/08 for a sanity check

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@fjl fjl fjl left review comments

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden approved these changes

@rjl493456442 rjl493456442 Awaiting requested review from rjl493456442 rjl493456442 is a code owner

Assignees

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@omerfirmak @fjl @MariusVanDerWijden