-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 212
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Priority processing of cosmic-swingset actions #5966
Labels
cosmic-swingset
package: cosmic-swingset
enhancement
New feature or request
vaults_triage
DO NOT USE
Milestone
Comments
mhofman
added
enhancement
New feature or request
cosmic-swingset
package: cosmic-swingset
labels
Aug 15, 2022
This was referenced Sep 14, 2022
cc @gibson042 |
Updated to reflect that we have a backpressure mechanism, that inbound/action queue entries are processed one at a time, and that the these are now staying in a vstorage backed queue. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
cosmic-swingset
package: cosmic-swingset
enhancement
New feature or request
vaults_triage
DO NOT USE
What is the Problem Being Solved?
We need to enable the priority processing of economic messages (#5334), in the absence of internal SwingSet priority queues (#4318), while avoiding contention with low priority messages that may already be queued and/or still be accepted by the network.
Description of the Design
We already process inbound actions one at a time, and run the kernel to completion before processing the next action (with the exception of timer polls).
#6576 will introduce a new priority inbound queue that is separate from the existing
actionQueue
.Cosmic-swingset must then process items from the priority queue before any items present in the action queue.
Any work pending from the previous block would still be finished first (it does not preempt ongoing work, especially because that work may already be a high priority action).
It's currently undecided whether timer messages should take priority over priority messages (see #6964)
Security Considerations
None
Test Plan
TBD
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: