Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state #5841

NotJeremyLiu · 2023-07-14T18:42:06Z

Closes: #5840

What is the purpose of the change

This PR changes ProtoRev's DeleteSwapsToBackrun call to use a new 50 mil gas meter instead of a gas meter that is shared with the rest of the ProtoRev's rebalance logic.
This is necessary to avoid failing a user's transaction if ProtoRev runs out of gas while rebalancing pools in the cacheCtx.

Testing and Verifying

Adds a test where the 50 mil gas meter is depleted within the cacheCtx while rebalancing, but does not cause the user's transaction to run out of gas (whereas it error when using the previous upperGasMeterLimit, you can substitute back in upperGasMeterLimit to see the panic before the change).

Documentation and Release Note

Added changelog entry.

Where is the change documented?

CHANGELOG.md

NotJeremyLiu · 2023-07-17T15:08:03Z

x/concentrated-liquidity/position.go

@@ -391,6 +391,10 @@ func (k Keeper) deletePosition(ctx sdk.Context,
 	return nil
 }

+func (k Keeper) CreatePosition(ctx sdk.Context, poolId uint64, owner sdk.AccAddress, tokensProvided sdk.Coins, amount0Min, amount1Min sdk.Int, lowerTick, upperTick int64) (positionId uint64, actualAmount0 sdk.Int, actualAmount1 sdk.Int, liquidityDelta sdk.Dec, lowerTickResult int64, upperTickResult int64, err error) {


@stackman27 @p0mvn For ProtoRev testing package to be able to create positions, I had to create a new exported CreatePosition method, previously a CreatePosition testing helper method was created in export_test.go but protorev doesn't have access to that method.

If there's a better way to get access to this ability I'm open to changing this to what is desired from y'alls end.

If we are doing this I think it just makes sense to export the original createPosition. This will end up being confusing later on down the road imo

@czarcas7ic Sounds good, I'll create a separate PR that just exports it and changes where it's being called from, then can rebase this PR on top of that once merged

PR up: #5893, will ping in slack once all CI finishes and r4r

stackman27 · 2023-07-17T19:28:58Z

x/protorev/keeper/posthandler.go

-	// from the current transaction's gas meter, but instead from a new gas meter
-	protoRevDec.ProtoRevKeeper.DeleteSwapsToBackrun(ctx.WithGasMeter(upperGasLimitMeter))
+	// from the current transaction's gas meter, but instead from an infinite gas meter.
+	protoRevDec.ProtoRevKeeper.DeleteSwapsToBackrun(ctx.WithGasMeter(sdk.NewInfiniteGasMeter()))


we should definitely bound this, maybe increase by x2 or x4 or anything else

i did some gas estimate check using our SwapLogic: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/pull/5850/files#diff-1a552fcc0a3d36556402345e840b658a7daccb101d7f73bca9ee2e3057ade2e6R3451

and here's the output. While Protorev route building, more than 2000 ticks was crossed

tickSpacing = 1 swapOutGivenIn direction TickCrossed = 1754 (from -20 to 1755) positions = 200 tick wide positions, ranging from [-5000 to 5000] NewGasCost = 22239116, OldGasCost = 22255556, DIFF = 16440 swapInGivenOut direction TickCrossed = 998 (from 1755 to 736) positions = 200 tick wide positions, ranging from [-5000 to 5000] tick NewGasCost = 22358879, OldGasCost = 22383527, DIFF = 24648

Using an infinite gas meter here does not mean we are having an unbounded gas meter for the rebalancing logic itself, that (at this point) is still 50 mil gas. This change is to use an infinite gas meter at the point of deleting swaps to backrun from the kvstore such that there will never be the ability for an out of gas error during deletion.

We should not use the same gasmeter for both rebalancing and deleting, we could use an arbitrarily high gasmeter here instead if that's desired.

Put in another way, this change has no impact on the amount of ticks that can be crossed or the desired bounding of protorev computation itself for rebalancing.

This commit changes it to use a new 50mil gas meter: 5789614

So now this can still fail a user's tx if for some reason deleting swaps from storage takes over 50mil gas (should never happen, but using any number that's not infinite gas meter runs into this issue)

i see its the pointer reference error where "upperGasLimitMeter" turns into 0 while DeleteSwapsToBackrun gets called? Therefore with current logic during computeSwap if Gas > 50M it will fail the swap not error, and same while DeletingSwapsToBackrun?

i think it will be very helpful if we add this comment too #5841 (comment)

@stackman27 Correct, this PR is purely to fix the shared reference usage. With that understanding, would you still prefer this to be a bounded gas limit? If so, I will change it to something smaller (10mil gas) just so that 50mil isn't used twice

yea i dont think deleting is too expensive, we can just set it to 50M and add inline comment on why we did that

comment added: b06bdb4

x/protorev/keeper/keeper_test.go

stackman27

This LGTM! 🥐

x/protorev/keeper/keeper_test.go

bpiv400 · 2023-07-18T21:07:21Z

x/protorev/keeper/keeper_test.go

@@ -965,8 +1012,8 @@ func (s *KeeperTestSuite) setUpTokenPairRoutes() {
 	fourPool3 := types.NewTrade(0, "test/2", "Atom")

 	// Two-Pool Route
-	twoPool0 := types.NewTrade(0, "test/3", types.OsmosisDenomination)
-	twoPool1 := types.NewTrade(39, types.OsmosisDenomination, "test/3")
+	twoPool0 := types.NewTrade(0, "ibc/0CD3A0285E1341859B5E86B6AB7682F023D03E97607CCC1DC95706411D866DF7", types.OsmosisDenomination)


Let's open up an issue to refactor the Posthandler logic slightly, so that we can directly test that the user's tx doesn't revert even when the gas meter runs out.

This test is basically assuming that's going to happen by initializing a pool with a ton of ticks and very low liquidity, such that Protorev tries to swap across it and runs out. But in theory, the gas optimization could get good enough or ProtoRev could be given more gas such that the test stops running out of gas, and we wouldn't know it's not doing the thing we think it is anymore.

I think this requires a slight refactor of the posthandler code that would allow initializing and passing in a zero gas meter, so we'd know for sure it would run out.

One way to do this would be to create a higher-order function that takes in a gas amount as a parameter returns a Posthandler that always initializes a gas meter with that amount.

A simpler way would be to create a helper method that the posthandler calls to wrap the logic for creating a gas meter and doing the simulations, then we could test that function directly.

( I'm not attached to any one approach at all. )

Added to this tracking issue: #5858

- Also renames test/3 to ibc/0CD3A0285E1341859B5E86B6AB7682F023D03E97607CCC1DC95706411D866DF7 to match mainnet denoms for first cl pool

czarcas7ic · 2023-07-26T16:34:08Z

Spoke offline, going to merge now, but @NotJeremyLiu will test in localosmosis at some point today/tomorrow. @NotJeremyLiu if you could post on this merged PR once you have tested locally and tag me in it it would be greatly appreciated.

NotJeremyLiu · 2023-07-27T13:38:36Z

Spoke offline, going to merge now, but @NotJeremyLiu will test in localosmosis at some point today/tomorrow. @NotJeremyLiu if you could post on this merged PR once you have tested locally and tag me in it it would be greatly appreciated.

@czarcas7ic Just verified that this change works as expected in LocalOsmosis, preventing the transaction from failing even when the cacheCtx gas meter is entirely consumed.

To reproduce:

The process to test was:

Adding the line ctx.GasMeter().ConsumeGas(100_000_000, "ProtoRevTrade") within the ProtoRevTrade method to always consume all the gas in the the cacheCtx.
Changing the LocalOsmosis script to create the pools even when the state flag is false
Running the code as is with the change (which does not fail the tx), and then reverting the change so that it uses the same upperGasLimitMeter (which does fail the tx and panics with an out of gas error)

…5841) * Use infinite gas meter to delete swaps from state * Add CL pool with many ticks test to run out of gas - Also renames test/3 to ibc/0CD3A0285E1341859B5E86B6AB7682F023D03E97607CCC1DC95706411D866DF7 to match mainnet denoms for first cl pool * Add changelog entry * fix comment * Use a new 50mil gas meter instead of infinite * add clarifying comment * make function name more specific * remove no longer needed export

NotJeremyLiu added V:state/breaking State machine breaking PR A:no-changelog labels Jul 14, 2023

NotJeremyLiu changed the title ~~Use infinite gas meter to delete swaps from state~~ Protorev: Use infinite gas meter to delete swaps from state Jul 14, 2023

github-actions bot added the C:x/concentrated-liquidity label Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2023 15:05

NotJeremyLiu requested review from p0mvn and czarcas7ic as code owners July 17, 2023 15:05

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

NotJeremyLiu requested a review from stackman27 July 17, 2023 15:08

NotJeremyLiu mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2023

ProtoRev v17 Improvements Tracking #5858

Closed

10 tasks

stackman27 reviewed Jul 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

NotJeremyLiu removed the A:no-changelog label Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu changed the title ~~Protorev: Use infinite gas meter to delete swaps from state~~ Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu requested a review from bpiv400 July 18, 2023 18:14

stackman27 approved these changes Jul 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

bpiv400 approved these changes Jul 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

NotJeremyLiu added 7 commits July 26, 2023 11:37

Use infinite gas meter to delete swaps from state

8b4a530

Add CL pool with many ticks test to run out of gas

9d27aaf

- Also renames test/3 to ibc/0CD3A0285E1341859B5E86B6AB7682F023D03E97607CCC1DC95706411D866DF7 to match mainnet denoms for first cl pool

Add changelog entry

5ecbce7

fix comment

8edb147

Use a new 50mil gas meter instead of infinite

e6e25c5

add clarifying comment

0543204

make function name more specific

246a4cb

NotJeremyLiu force-pushed the jl/fix-protorev-out-of-gas-error branch from 077a371 to 246a4cb Compare July 26, 2023 15:37

remove no longer needed export

c76b1a6

github-actions bot removed the C:x/concentrated-liquidity label Jul 26, 2023

czarcas7ic merged commit d804015 into main Jul 26, 2023
1 check passed

czarcas7ic deleted the jl/fix-protorev-out-of-gas-error branch July 26, 2023 16:34

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 1, 2024

Broken Links Detected #7641

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 1, 2024

Broken Links Detected #8183

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 15, 2024

Broken Links Detected #8269

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state #5841

Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state #5841

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

czarcas7ic Jul 26, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 26, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 26, 2023

stackman27 Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023

stackman27 Jul 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

NotJeremyLiu Jul 18, 2023

stackman27 Jul 18, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 18, 2023

stackman27 left a comment

bpiv400 Jul 18, 2023

NotJeremyLiu Jul 18, 2023

czarcas7ic commented Jul 26, 2023

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 27, 2023

Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state #5841

Protorev: Use new gas meter to delete swaps from state #5841

Conversation

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 14, 2023 • edited Loading

What is the purpose of the change

Testing and Verifying

Documentation and Release Note

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 Jul 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

czarcas7ic commented Jul 26, 2023

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 27, 2023

NotJeremyLiu commented Jul 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

NotJeremyLiu Jul 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

stackman27 Jul 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading