LiteSVM VM consumes much more CU than in real runtime.

[naturespowerr]

Environment

• Program: pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA (Pumpswap)

Problem Description

I noticed that compute units consumed within my local LiteSVM environment are significantly higher than those observed on mainnet for the same program (Pumpswap). This discrepancy applies across all instructions — the local VM consistently reports higher CU consumption than production.

LiteSVM Logs

Full Transaction Log

Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA invoke [2]
Instruction: BuyExactQuoteIn
Program pfeeUxB6jkeY1Hxd7CsFCAjcbHA9rWtchMGdZ6VojVZ invoke [3]
Instruction: GetFees
Program pfeeUxB6jkeY1Hxd7CsFCAjcbHA9rWtchMGdZ6VojVZ consumed 4545 of 1243491 compute units
Program return: pfeeUxB6jkeY1Hxd7CsFCAjcbHA9rWtchMGdZ6VojVZ FAAAAAAAAAAFAAAAAAAAADwAAAAAAAAA
Program pfeeUxB6jkeY1Hxd7CsFCAjcbHA9rWtchMGdZ6VojVZ success
Program TokenzQdBNbLqP5VEhdkAS6EPFLC1PHnBqCXEpPxuEb invoke [3]
Instruction: TransferChecked
Program TokenzQdBNbLqP5VEhdkAS6EPFLC1PHnBqCXEpPxuEb consumed 2193 of 1233916 compute units
Program TokenzQdBNbLqP5VEhdkAS6EPFLC1PHnBqCXEpPxuEb success
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [3]
Instruction: TransferChecked
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 6238 of 1228869 compute units
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [3]
Instruction: TransferChecked
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 6238 of 1219791 compute units
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [3]
Instruction: TransferChecked
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 6238 of 1210710 compute units
Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
Program data: 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
Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA invoke [3]
Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA consumed 2042 of 1197013 compute units
Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA success
Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA consumed 146053 of 1339262 compute units
Program pAMMBay6oceH9fJKBRHGP5D4bD4sWpmSwMn52FMfXEA success

Expected Behavior

CU consumption in LiteSVM should closely match mainnet values for the same transaction with identical accounts and data.

Questions

1. Is there a known difference in how LiteSVM calculates compute units compared to the mainnet SVM?
2. Are there any configuration options to align CU metering with production?

[wallyredacted]

I noticed the same thing in my testing. Would be interested to know if these kind of inaccuracies can be resolved or we are better off using Mollusk for more accurate estimates.

[Aursen]

Actually I don't have differences, if you take the master branch do you still have the issue?

[wallyredacted]

When performing a sell on pool 3jWThWJP66UCE4ykg71CmsB64WSCExguKuCUXVzfVmqW for example.

Using litesvm master branch: 132677 compute units
Using mollusk: 90573 compute units

Example of a recent on-chain transaction: 94126 compute units (signature: https://solscan.io/tx/66SPTgnJfr45uNw9gJoGcBixm36GHTwQb5PYfw6YKMx69iGPEu796xGHQPX4EWfBfxUhJUTYQ6ar7tPk3q99NpWK)

[Aursen]

When performing a sell on pool 3jWThWJP66UCE4ykg71CmsB64WSCExguKuCUXVzfVmqW for example.

Using litesvm master branch: 132677 compute units Using mollusk: 90573 compute units

Example of a recent on-chain transaction: 94126 compute units (signature: https://solscan.io/tx/66SPTgnJfr45uNw9gJoGcBixm36GHTwQb5PYfw6YKMx69iGPEu796xGHQPX4EWfBfxUhJUTYQ6ar7tPk3q99NpWK)

Can you send me the code for it?

[wallyredacted]

Something like this:

https://gist.github.com/wallyredacted/82b8e014766822543689d2e8985c4961