This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 4, 2023. It is now read-only.
Work Units Overhaul #20
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 7, 2022
patrick-ogrady
force-pushed
the
value-units
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a640220 to
f0ddd33
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
We may have more luck doing more granular control on difficulty (using an int instead of bits). I think the multi-work thing is somewhat jank...will change to continuous work calculation to avoid 2^x forced granularity. |
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 7, 2022
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 7, 2022
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 7, 2022
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 7, 2022
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 8, 2022
patrick-ogrady
commented
Jan 8, 2022
| k[0] = p | ||
| k[1] = parser.Delimiter | ||
| binary.LittleEndian.PutUint64(k[2:], uint64(t)) | ||
| binary.BigEndian.PutUint64(k[2:], t) |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Found this pretty serious bug in my code lol
gyuho
force-pushed
the
value-units
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6ffbbdf to
0ad71d8
Compare
Contributor
Block builds are failing, causing e2e test failures. |
Signed-off-by: Gyuho Lee <[email protected]>
patrick-ogrady
force-pushed
the
value-units
branch
from
b22933b to
0a0efb3
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Latest Clues: fetched estimated difficulty (diff=7, cost=1)
issuing tx 2Rgg8ZnhvgJBRr5ixAYRZARb4zBEpJR1D4kDjgGLPE7qrwMavz (units=10, difficulty=9, surplus=20, blkID=Y9UdWfUz6uUyAqjAXspoSEvA4BfbYe62m5VyenZWrMExFUdFh)
transaction 2Rgg8ZnhvgJBRr5ixAYRZARb4zBEpJR1D4kDjgGLPE7qrwMavz confirmed
raw prefix P55X8AD2z7ugaoB8BQsu27jDhpqTAsczP: units=1 expiry=2022-02-08 02:13:27 +0000 UTC (719h59m58.545538054s remaining)
fetched estimated difficulty (diff=6, cost=60)
issuing tx msN8k866zjv5hJP3qJHh66EA3KP64fr5W8Mc8ZS8vLkBUaCFp (units=11, difficulty=344, surplus=3718, blkID=WM5fUVnnEdKg73mb3ivsurvQ3Rx9kzmWSW1EvjLN1JsyK2tD7)
transaction msN8k866zjv5hJP3qJHh66EA3KP64fr5W8Mc8ZS8vLkBUaCFp confirmed
raw prefix P55X8AD2z7ugaoB8BQsu27jDhpqTAsczP: units=2 expiry=2022-01-24 02:13:28 +0000 UTC (359h59m58.223977384s remaining)
fetched estimated difficulty (diff=5, cost=59)
issuing tx 2X5uQfgjTgqNCSZL5XCmsM4Hww9ByBEgA4kt2vx9h6WoG9rsTo (units=31, difficulty=14, surplus=279, blkID=2AJTt9UuYGfMnFWGhmDp7Rc9KADhd86Wgx52GnPBsSn7U3rPR) |
Contributor
Author
|
From the node: |
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 9, 2022
| return nil, nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| surplusWork += (tx.Difficulty() - context.NextDifficulty) * tx.Units() | ||
| surplusWork += (tx.Difficulty() - b.Difficulty) * tx.Units() |
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 9, 2022
| recommendedC := ctx.NextCost / uint64(recentTxs) | ||
| if recommendedC < vm.minBlockCost { | ||
| recommendedC = vm.minBlockCost | ||
| cPerTx := pCost / uint64(recentTxs) / uint64(ctx.RecentBlockIDs.Len()) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here recentTxs == ctx.RecentBlockIDs.Len() via line 83? Why do we do division twice?
And can ctx.RecentTxIDs.Len() be ever 0 (zero devision panic)?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- we check that
recentTxsis non-zero on 83 to prevent div by 0 (could happen in block height 1) - recent block ids can never be 0
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 9, 2022
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func PutPrefixInfo(db database.KeyValueWriter, prefix []byte, i *PrefixInfo, lastExpiry int64) error { | ||
| func PutPrefixInfo(db database.KeyValueWriter, prefix []byte, i *PrefixInfo, lastExpiry uint64) error { |
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 9, 2022
gyuho
reviewed
Jan 9, 2022
chain/storage.go
Outdated
| cursor := db.NewIteratorWithStart(startKey) | ||
| removals := 0 | ||
| for cursor.Next() && removals < limit { | ||
| for cursor.Next() && removals <= limit { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removals < limit
since this can delete limit + 1?
If we want to adjust prune interval to fullPruneInterval of 1-second on removals=true, vm.pruneCall() can set removals=true when removals >= vm.pruneLimit, or change this for-loop to removals < limit and keep removals == vm.pruneLimit?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops...reverted that change.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
To allow for larger values, we gotta get a little creative 😉 . Multiple units of work can now be completed in a given transaction (as a function of graffitis).
Right now, this PR makes it so you can differentiate the cost to set a large key vs the rate it decays at.