Skip to content

Conversation

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull commented Jan 12, 2026

Previously, we'd always pre-allocate a lot of memory in NetworkGraph::new. While this can be a nice efficiency improvements to avoid unnecessary re-allocations, it can also result in unnecessarily allocating memory. Here, we add a new constructor that allows specifying the node and channel count estimates for pre-allocation.

Apart from that, we also update the numbers for Jan 2026, and now determine the pre-allocation factors dynamically based on the actual numbers when reading a persisted graph.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 12, 2026

👋 I see @wpaulino was un-assigned.
If you'd like another reviewer assignment, please click here.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.58%. Comparing base (c722443) to head (070002c).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs 77.77% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4306      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.59%   86.58%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         158      158              
  Lines      102408   102382      -26     
  Branches   102408   102382      -26     
==========================================
- Hits        88678    88647      -31     
- Misses      11309    11319      +10     
+ Partials     2421     2416       -5     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzing 36.92% <16.66%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
tests 85.87% <77.77%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

///
/// To improve efficiency, this will pre-allocate memory for `node_count_estimate` nodes and
/// `channel_count_estimate` channels.
pub fn from_node_and_channel_count_estimates(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm pretty skeptical of exposing this. If you don't want a network graph, don't build one. If you want a network graph, we should allocate for a network graph. How is a downstream dev better positioned to provide estimates here than we are?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, from my point of view it is a bit odd to pre-allocate a lot of memory based on static estimations that will become stale over time. Plus, we currently make no distinction based on Network here, so we will always allocate that much memory even for small Regtest or Signet environments with only a hand full of nodes (e.g., in tests). If you're skeptical, maybe we can drop the extra constructor, but leave the dynamic allocation on read, and only apply the estimates for Network::Bitcoin?

Of course, I have to admit that I first had planned to use that constructor for the minimal-mode Node over at LDK Node, but you're right, for that application we probably need to completely change up our types there and simply rip out anything related to the Router/NetworkGraph entirely.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, from my point of view it is a bit odd to pre-allocate a lot of memory based on static estimations that will become stale over time.

Sure, but do we really expect downstream devs to update their estimates more often than us?

Plus, we currently make no distinction based on Network here, so we will always allocate that much memory even for small Regtest or Signet environments with only a hand full of nodes (e.g., in tests).

Yea, we should definitely use Network to disable the pre-allocation.

If you're skeptical, maybe we can drop the extra constructor, but leave the dynamic allocation on read, and only apply the estimates for Network::Bitcoin?

Yea, makes sense. We could still use the constants on mainnet loads, even, to ensure we pre-allocate even if loading with an empty (or partially-synced) graph but I guess it doesn't matter that much either way.

Of course, I have to admit that I first had planned to use that constructor for the minimal-mode Node over at LDK Node, but you're right, for that application we probably need to completely change up our types there and simply rip out anything related to the Router/NetworkGraph entirely.

Yea, I mean it would be simpler for LDK Node, sure, but it definitely feels like the wrong way :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alright, will drop the first commit then, and add one that disables the estimates on non-mainnet networks.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tnull tnull Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, let me know if I can squash.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, please.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@tnull tnull requested a review from TheBlueMatt January 14, 2026 11:19
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt removed the request for review from wpaulino January 14, 2026 12:27
@tnull tnull force-pushed the 2026-01-allow-empty-network-graph branch from 01e163e to 9138bb2 Compare January 14, 2026 12:48
tnull added 2 commits January 14, 2026 15:20
…eading

When reading a persisted network graph, we previously pre-allocated our
default node/channels estimate count for the respective `IndexedMap`
capacities. However, this might unnecessarily allocate memory on
reading, for example if we have an (almost) empty network graph for one
reason or another. As we have the actual counts of persisted nodes and
channels available, we here simply opt to allocate these numbers (plus
15%). This will also ensure that our pre-allocations will keep
up-to-date over time as the network grows or shrinks.
Previously, we'd always pre-allocate memory for the node and channel
maps based on mainnet numbers, even if we're on another network like
`Regest`. Here, we only apply the estimates if we're actually on
`Network::Bitcoin`, which should reduce the `NetworkGraph`'s memory
footprint considerably in tests.
@tnull tnull force-pushed the 2026-01-allow-empty-network-graph branch from 9138bb2 to 070002c Compare January 14, 2026 14:20
@tnull
Copy link
Contributor Author

tnull commented Jan 14, 2026

Squashed without further changes.

Comment on lines +1795 to +1800
const CHAN_COUNT_ESTIMATE: usize = 50_000;
/// In Jan, 2026 there were about 13K nodes
///
/// We over-allocate by a bit because 15% more is better than the double we get if we're slightly
/// too low.
const NODE_COUNT_ESTIMATE: usize = 15_000;
Copy link
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, oops, these are actives. My node (restarted less than a week ago, i believe, so hasn't pruned channels where one side has been disabled for a week) shows network_nodes: 17013, network_channels: 54264. Thus, if we use 50k/15k what we'll actually end up with is 100k/30k as the allocation (I assume vec doubles? maybe not for large allocations?)

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

let channels_map_capacity = (channels_count as u128 * 115 / 100)
.try_into()
.map_err(|_| DecodeError::InvalidValue)?;
if channels_map_capacity > MAX_CHAN_COUNT_LIMIT {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe someone is doing a 1M channels test? Let's just limit the pre-allocation rather than failing.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants