CAddrInfo objects are an implementation detail of how AddrMan manages and adds
metadata to different records. Encapsulate this logic by updating Select &
SelectTriedCollision to return the additional info that the callers need.
Moves some of the setup into the benchmark loop so it is possible to run
the loop for an arbitrary number of times. Due to recent optimizations
in #22974 the benchmark now runs much faster, so the inner loop now calls
Good() 32 times as often to get better numbers.
Renamed the benchmark to AddrManAddThenGood because that's now what is
actually tested. To get the the number of just Good(), one needs to
subtract the benchmark result of AddrManAdd.
Just use unique_ptr<CAddrMan>s and reset the pointer if a frest addrman is required.
Also make CAddrMan::Clear() private to ensure that no call sites are missed.
Currently addrman consistency checks are a compile time option, and are not
enabled in our CI. It's unlikely anyone is running these consistency checks.
Make them a runtime option instead, where users can enable addrman
consistency checks every n operations (similar to mempool tests). Update
the addrman unit tests to do internal consistency checks every 100
operations (checking on every operations causes the test runtime to
increase by several seconds).
Also assert on a failed addrman consistency check to terminate program
execution.
CAddrMan.GetAddr() would previously limit the number and percentage of
addresses returned (to ADDRMAN_GETADDR_MAX (1000) and
ADDRMAN_GETADDR_MAX_PCT (23) respectively). Instead, make it the callers
responsibility to specify the maximum addresses and percentage they want
returned.
For net_processing, the maximums are MAX_ADDR_TO_SEND (1000) and
MAX_PCT_ADDR_TO_SEND (23). For rpc/net, the maximum is specified by the
client.
This replaces the current benchmarking framework with nanobench [1], an
MIT licensed single-header benchmarking library, of which I am the
autor. This has in my opinion several advantages, especially on Linux:
* fast: Running all benchmarks takes ~6 seconds instead of 4m13s on
an Intel i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz.
* accurate: I ran e.g. the benchmark for SipHash_32b 10 times and
calculate standard deviation / mean = coefficient of variation:
* 0.57% CV for old benchmarking framework
* 0.20% CV for nanobench
So the benchmark results with nanobench seem to vary less than with
the old framework.
* It automatically determines runtime based on clock precision, no need
to specify number of evaluations.
* measure instructions, cycles, branches, instructions per cycle,
branch misses (only Linux, when performance counters are available)
* output in markdown table format.
* Warn about unstable environment (frequency scaling, turbo, ...)
* For better profiling, it is possible to set the environment variable
NANOBENCH_ENDLESS to force endless running of a particular benchmark
without the need to recompile. This makes it to e.g. run "perf top"
and look at hotspots.
Here is an example copy & pasted from the terminal output:
| ns/byte | byte/s | err% | ins/byte | cyc/byte | IPC | bra/byte | miss% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|---------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 2.52 | 396,529,415.94 | 0.6% | 25.42 | 8.02 | 3.169 | 0.06 | 0.0% | 0.03 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp RIPEMD160`
| 1.87 | 535,161,444.83 | 0.3% | 21.36 | 5.95 | 3.589 | 0.06 | 0.0% | 0.02 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA1`
| 3.22 | 310,344,174.79 | 1.1% | 36.80 | 10.22 | 3.601 | 0.09 | 0.0% | 0.04 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256`
| 2.01 | 496,375,796.23 | 0.0% | 18.72 | 6.43 | 2.911 | 0.01 | 1.0% | 0.00 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256D64_1024`
| 7.23 | 138,263,519.35 | 0.1% | 82.66 | 23.11 | 3.577 | 1.63 | 0.1% | 0.00 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256_32b`
| 3.04 | 328,780,166.40 | 0.3% | 35.82 | 9.69 | 3.696 | 0.03 | 0.0% | 0.03 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA512`
[1] https://github.com/martinus/nanobench
* Adds support for asymptotes
This adds support to calculate asymptotic complexity of a benchmark.
This is similar to #17375, but currently only one asymptote is
supported, and I have added support in the benchmark `ComplexMemPool`
as an example.
Usage is e.g. like this:
```
./bench_bitcoin -filter=ComplexMemPool -asymptote=25,50,100,200,400,600,800
```
This runs the benchmark `ComplexMemPool` several times but with
different complexityN settings. The benchmark can extract that number
and use it accordingly. Here, it's used for `childTxs`. The output is
this:
| complexityN | ns/op | op/s | err% | ins/op | cyc/op | IPC | total | benchmark
|------------:|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|----------:|:----------
| 25 | 1,064,241.00 | 939.64 | 1.4% | 3,960,279.00 | 2,829,708.00 | 1.400 | 0.01 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 50 | 1,579,530.00 | 633.10 | 1.0% | 6,231,810.00 | 4,412,674.00 | 1.412 | 0.02 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 100 | 4,022,774.00 | 248.58 | 0.6% | 16,544,406.00 | 11,889,535.00 | 1.392 | 0.04 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 200 | 15,390,986.00 | 64.97 | 0.2% | 63,904,254.00 | 47,731,705.00 | 1.339 | 0.17 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 400 | 69,394,711.00 | 14.41 | 0.1% | 272,602,461.00 | 219,014,691.00 | 1.245 | 0.76 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 600 | 168,977,165.00 | 5.92 | 0.1% | 639,108,082.00 | 535,316,887.00 | 1.194 | 1.86 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 800 | 310,109,077.00 | 3.22 | 0.1% |1,149,134,246.00 | 984,620,812.00 | 1.167 | 3.41 | `ComplexMemPool`
| coefficient | err% | complexity
|--------------:|-------:|------------
| 4.78486e-07 | 4.5% | O(n^2)
| 6.38557e-10 | 21.7% | O(n^3)
| 3.42338e-05 | 38.0% | O(n log n)
| 0.000313914 | 46.9% | O(n)
| 0.0129823 | 114.4% | O(log n)
| 0.0815055 | 133.8% | O(1)
The best fitting curve is O(n^2), so the algorithm seems to scale
quadratic with `childTxs` in the range 25 to 800.
