📅 Original date posted:2017-05-08
📝 Original message:Hi,
I've moved the bitcoin-dev list to bcc:, as this question is better suited
to forums dedicated to Bitcoin Core implementation specifics, rather than
the general bitcoin development list.
Please feel free in the future to ask questions like this on the
bitcoin-core-dev mailing list (https://lists.linuxfoundation
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-core-dev) or on the #bitcoin-core-dev
freenode IRC channel.
The work limit (that was put in place in https://github.com/bitcoin/
bitcoin/pull/6654, when the concept of "dirty" entries was introduced) was
removed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594, in preparation for
ancestor-feerate-mining. So those comments should have been cleaned up to
match the new code.
Please feel free to file an issue or open a PR to update those comments at
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.
Thanks,
Suhas
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:38 AM, DJ Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have a question about the use of txmempool. find attached the code in
> txmempool.h
>
>
> ======================================================
> /* Adding transactions from a disconnected block can be very time
> consuming,
> * because we don't have a way to limit the number of in-mempool
> descendants.
> * To bound CPU processing, we limit the amount of work we're willing to do
> * to properly update the descendant information for a tx being added from
> * a disconnected block. If we would exceed the limit, then we instead
> mark
> * the entry as "dirty", and set the feerate for sorting purposes to be
> equal
> * the feerate of the transaction without any descendants. */
>
> class CTxMemPoolEntry
> {
> private:
> // ...
> // Information about descendants of this transaction that are in the
> // mempool; if we remove this transaction we must remove all of these
> // descendants as well. if nCountWithDescendants is 0, treat this entry
> as
> // dirty, and nSizeWithDescendants and nModFeesWithDescendants will not
> be
> // correct.
>
> int64_t nCountWithDescendants; //!< number of descendant transactions
> // ...
> ======================================================
>
>
> Now, the only place where nCountWithDescendants is modified is the
> following (txmempool.cpp):
>
>
> ======================================================
> void CTxMemPoolEntry::UpdateDescendantState(int64_t modifySize, CAmount
> modifyFee, int64_t modifyCount)
> {
> nSizeWithDescendants += modifySize;
> assert(int64_t(nSizeWithDescendants) > 0);
> nModFeesWithDescendants += modifyFee;
> nCountWithDescendants += modifyCount;
> assert(int64_t(nCountWithDescendants) > 0);
> }
> ======================================================
>
>
> Therefore, nCountWithDescendants is never zero.
> Am i missing something? Where is this concept of "dirty" defined?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> DJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170508/dfb5c9f0/attachment.html>;
Suhas Daftuar [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ss…e0am4
2023-06-07 18:00:55
in reply to nevent1q…m8yh
Author Public Key
npub1ss2s89s938xfh3zzz0j2mhp25tlrlcrj0duljr0ne0t8v2r4cv0q5e0am4Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:55Event JSON
{
"id": "71da6dd3eaf1a556955a538394828d38e3712dd1df73fdaa0e1bf27ba24ef0dd",
"pubkey": "841503960589cc9bc44213e4addc2aa2fe3fe0727b79f90df3cbd6762875c31e",
"created_at": 1686160855,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1ba7355f6efbb451533993f167ef7e52841994bb467ccc3033e8358e46ab65eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"505305bc14c5106e408a7ca9b7105031c5c291e92aac4db25c2003db85b64115",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee61aa98a9ca177f40309f276bee20166756c249ddd528e93320242a18edef0d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-08\n📝 Original message:Hi,\n\nI've moved the bitcoin-dev list to bcc:, as this question is better suited\nto forums dedicated to Bitcoin Core implementation specifics, rather than\nthe general bitcoin development list.\n\nPlease feel free in the future to ask questions like this on the\nbitcoin-core-dev mailing list (https://lists.linuxfoundation\n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-core-dev) or on the #bitcoin-core-dev\nfreenode IRC channel.\n\nThe work limit (that was put in place in https://github.com/bitcoin/\nbitcoin/pull/6654, when the concept of \"dirty\" entries was introduced) was\nremoved in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594, in preparation for\nancestor-feerate-mining. So those comments should have been cleaned up to\nmatch the new code.\n\nPlease feel free to file an issue or open a PR to update those comments at\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.\n\nThanks,\nSuhas\n\n\nOn Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:38 AM, DJ Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi Guys,\n\u003e\n\u003e I have a question about the use of txmempool. find attached the code in\n\u003e txmempool.h\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ======================================================\n\u003e /* Adding transactions from a disconnected block can be very time\n\u003e consuming,\n\u003e * because we don't have a way to limit the number of in-mempool\n\u003e descendants.\n\u003e * To bound CPU processing, we limit the amount of work we're willing to do\n\u003e * to properly update the descendant information for a tx being added from\n\u003e * a disconnected block. If we would exceed the limit, then we instead\n\u003e mark\n\u003e * the entry as \"dirty\", and set the feerate for sorting purposes to be\n\u003e equal\n\u003e * the feerate of the transaction without any descendants. */\n\u003e\n\u003e class CTxMemPoolEntry\n\u003e {\n\u003e private:\n\u003e // ...\n\u003e // Information about descendants of this transaction that are in the\n\u003e // mempool; if we remove this transaction we must remove all of these\n\u003e // descendants as well. if nCountWithDescendants is 0, treat this entry\n\u003e as\n\u003e // dirty, and nSizeWithDescendants and nModFeesWithDescendants will not\n\u003e be\n\u003e // correct.\n\u003e\n\u003e int64_t nCountWithDescendants; //!\u003c number of descendant transactions\n\u003e // ...\n\u003e ======================================================\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Now, the only place where nCountWithDescendants is modified is the\n\u003e following (txmempool.cpp):\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ======================================================\n\u003e void CTxMemPoolEntry::UpdateDescendantState(int64_t modifySize, CAmount\n\u003e modifyFee, int64_t modifyCount)\n\u003e {\n\u003e nSizeWithDescendants += modifySize;\n\u003e assert(int64_t(nSizeWithDescendants) \u003e 0);\n\u003e nModFeesWithDescendants += modifyFee;\n\u003e nCountWithDescendants += modifyCount;\n\u003e assert(int64_t(nCountWithDescendants) \u003e 0);\n\u003e }\n\u003e ======================================================\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Therefore, nCountWithDescendants is never zero.\n\u003e Am i missing something? Where is this concept of \"dirty\" defined?\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks a lot,\n\u003e DJ\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170508/dfb5c9f0/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d6c8abfaa7e05f44978948c25169c1b1feaa4b56414bc413d71f2e2b195528d6f5e79263f0f12e689e88f5b6dda28209d47eed36fde77c4f1e6f5521a9da7145"
}