Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also introduce a seal_terminate_per_locked_dependency but the extra PoV should be pretty low and will be refunded anyway with PoV Reclaim
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's wait for the benchmarks to see how bad it is. I don't think the reclaim is working, yet. The linked PR is only the node side. However, terminate is rare enough so that I wouldn't optimize too much for it so we are probably good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's wait for the benchmarks to see how bad it is. I don't think the reclaim is working, yet. The linked PR is only the node side. However, terminate is rare enough so that I wouldn't optimize too much for it so we are probably good.
Co-authored-by: Alexander Theißen <[email protected]>
|
bot bench substrate-pallet --pallet=pallet_contracts |
|
@pgherveou https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/5445920 was started for your command Comment |
…=dev --target_dir=substrate --pallet=pallet_contracts
|
@pgherveou Command |
|
Weights are much higher (194%) as expected Since this is a rare operation and PoV refund is around the corner (runtime PR merged here do you think it's still worth adding a terminate_per_locked_delegate_dependency? |
|
I think then it is fine to just use the worst case here. |
|
Weird. Those should not have been affected by your changes here? |
oups:sorry this is a comment for #3585 |
Co-authored-by: Alexander Theißen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
No description provided.