💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396442654)
Why was this line changed?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396441413)
This was touched just to remove the `\n`?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396496517)
```
/**
* Emplace a coin into cacheCoins without performing any checks, marking
* the emplaced coin as dirty.
*
* NOT FOR GENERAL USE. Used only when loading coins from a UTXO snapshot.
* @sa ChainstateManager::PopulateAndValidateSnapshot()
*/
void EmplaceCoinInternalDANGER(COutPoint&& outpoint, Coin&& coin);
```
`EmplaceCoinInternalDANGER` is not meant to be used for an overwrite according to the docs, so to mimick the assumeutxo inserts I only ca
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396505624)
since we're casting a boolean to boolean, but I've reverted it

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396505667)
to unify it with the line below - not sure why you'd want to leave them different, but reverted it.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396505698)
Sure, we can add a `Assume(m_dirty_count == 0);` like in `ReallocateCache`

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396505738)
To make sure the `m_dirty_count ` updates and the `cachedCoinsUsage` updates are always done in the same order for consistency.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33512#discussion_r2396505776)
it's meant to avoid structures like `cache.usage() += InsertCoinsMapEntry(cache.map()`, but I don't mind reverting if you find that more readable.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546287)
Removed

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546324)
Removed

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546550)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546704)
Fixed, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546850)
Good point, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396546909)
Thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396548075)
Done, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: print every script verification state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#discussion_r2396551204)
Done, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] coins: increase default UTXO flush batch size to 32 MiB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#issuecomment-3358939197)
I have also measured a db-cache adjusted AssumeUTXO load to see which version performs better under the same memory requirements - as suggested by @sipa.

Reran the *before* scenario with `-dbcache=450`, it basically consumed the same *744 MiB* memory as before, finishing in *1h:46m*:
```
Command: ./build/bin/bitcoind -datadir=/mnt/my_storage/ShallowBitcoinData -server -blocksonly -connect=0 -dbcache=450 -printtoconsole=0
Massif arguments: --time-unit=ms --massif-out-file=/mnt/
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "multiprocess: Fix high overhead from message logging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33517#issuecomment-3359134129)
Concept ACK

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "log: print every script verification state change"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#pullrequestreview-3292830294)
re-ACK 45bd8914658a675d00aa9c83373d6903a8a9ece8

Just fixed some nits since previous review.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "[29.x] guix build failure on ppc with xcb":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33488#issuecomment-3359477692)
I'd try to setup a fresh guix (maybe in a container) and build from there to check if something is wrong with your CPU/memory or the guix install.

It should be roughly:

```sh
docker run --privileged -it --rm ubuntu:24.04

(inside the container, assuming the guix apt package still exists:)

export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && apt update && apt install git vim htop guix bash curl make -y && git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git --depth=1 /bitcoin-core && cd /bitcoin-core && group
...