Verify signatures on both main thread and worker threads #3793
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3793 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 36.83% 35.99% -0.84%
==========================================
Files 322 324 +2
Lines 8827 9139 +312
Branches 1372 1481 +109
==========================================
+ Hits 3251 3290 +39
- Misses 5434 5706 +272
- Partials 142 143 +1 |
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
twoeths
requested review from
wemeetagain,
dapplion and
g11tech
as code owners
|
I would rather add another flag when sending jobs to the BLS verifier where you opt-out of multi-thread Opting-out and using more resources on the main thread should be done very carefully and which good backing data that's it's a good trade-off |
|
Test result in contabo-18 (250 validators) for ~16h (previously it's
Looks like it's a good trade-off. Also @dapplion I notice the "gossip validation gap" issue in previous branch ( |
|
Some feedback items
async verifySignatureSets(sets: ISignatureSet[], opts: VerifySignatureOpts = {}): Promise<boolean> {
if (opts.useMainThread) {
return verifySignatureSetsMaybeBatch(
sets.map((set) => ({
publicKey: getAggregatedPubkey(set),
message: set.signingRoot.valueOf() as Uint8Array,
signature: set.signature,
}))
);
}
|
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| /** | ||
| * Verify signatures on main thread or not. | ||
| */ | ||
| blsVerifyMainThread?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe better name blsVerifyOnMainThread?
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| * Use main thread to verify signatures, use this with care. | ||
| * Ignore the batchable option if this is true. | ||
| */ | ||
| useMainThread?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we name verifyOnMainThread for consistency with blsVerifyOnMainThread?
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const endNs = process.hrtime.bigint(); | ||
| this.metrics?.blsTime.mainThreadDurationInThreadPool.observe(Number(endNs - startNs) / 1e9); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can use the timer function which does calls the process time for you. Also wrap in try {} finally {} in case verifySignatureSetsMaybeBatch rejects
const timer = metrics.startTimer()
try {
return fn()
} finally {
timer()
}
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
packages/lodestar/src/chain/chain.ts
Outdated
| const bls = opts.blsVerifyAllMainThread | ||
| ? new BlsSingleThreadVerifier({metrics}) | ||
| : opts.blsVerifyAllMultiThread | ||
| ? new BlsMultiThreadWorkerPool({blsVerifyAllMultiThread: true}, blsModules) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just do
new BlsMultiThreadWorkerPool(opts, blsModules)
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| import {IBlsVerifier} from "./interface"; | ||
| import {verifySignatureSetsMaybeBatch} from "./maybeBatch"; | ||
| import {getAggregatedPubkey} from "./utils"; | ||
|
|
||
| export class BlsSingleThreadVerifier implements IBlsVerifier { | ||
| private readonly metrics: IMetrics | null; | ||
|
|
||
| constructor({metrics = null}: {metrics: IMetrics | null}) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Equivalent but constructor arguments like this look much cleaner
constructor(private readonly metrics: IMetrics | null) {}
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| sets.map((set) => ({ | ||
| publicKey: getAggregatedPubkey(set), | ||
| message: set.signingRoot.valueOf() as Uint8Array, | ||
| signature: set.signature, | ||
| })) | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const endNs = process.hrtime.bigint(); | ||
| this.metrics?.blsTime.singleThreadDuration.observe(Number(endNs - startNs) / 1e9); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use metrics.startTimer() and try {} finally {}
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| help: "Time to verify signatures with single thread mode", | ||
| buckets: [0.1, 1], | ||
| }), | ||
| mainThreadDurationInThreadPool: register.histogram({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's already a group blsThreadPool, add mainThreadDurationInThreadPool to there
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| @@ -367,6 +367,20 @@ export function createLodestarMetrics( | |||
| }), | |||
| }, | |||
|
|
|||
| // BLS time | |||
| blsTime: { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Put right after blsThreadPool, with group blsSingleThread or no group at all
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ export function getGossipHandlers(modules: ValidatorFnsModules, options: GossipH | |||
|
|
|||
| // `validProposerSignature = true`, in gossip validation the proposer signature is checked | |||
| chain | |||
| .processBlock(signedBlock, {validProposerSignature: true}) | |||
| .processBlock(signedBlock, {validProposerSignature: true, blsVerifyMainThread: true}) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add explanation above the blsVerifyMainThread option linking to the issue and investigation that motivated this change
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| @@ -164,7 +164,9 @@ export class UnknownBlockSync { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| pendingBlock.status = PendingBlockStatus.processing; | |||
| const res = await wrapError(this.chain.processBlock(pendingBlock.signedBlock, {ignoreIfKnown: true})); | |||
| const res = await wrapError( | |||
| this.chain.processBlock(pendingBlock.signedBlock, {ignoreIfKnown: true, blsVerifyMainThread: true}) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add explanation above the blsVerifyMainThread option linking to the issue and investigation that motivated this change. Copy paste from packages/lodestar/src/network/gossip/handlers/index.ts.
Then please add a note why unknown block sync should use true and range sync false
dapplion
reviewed
Feb 28, 2022
| @@ -194,6 +194,8 @@ export class RangeSync extends (EventEmitter as {new (): RangeSyncEmitter}) { | |||
| ignoreIfFinalized: true, | |||
| // We won't attest to this block so it's okay to ignore a SYNCING message from execution layer | |||
| fromRangeSync: true, | |||
| // When syncing, we should verify signatures in worker threads | |||
| blsVerifyMainThread: false, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add a note why unknown block sync should use true and range sync false
twoeths
changed the title
|
with #3812, gossip p7 penalty (broken IWANT promises issue) is avoided most of the time so this PR is less important also in hetzner-test0 (with >900 validators), BLS Job wait time is consistently low |
dapplion
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Motivation
We want a stable BLS - Job Wait Time metric, ideally it should be < 100ms consistently
Description
BlsMixedVerifierto send batchable bls jobs to worker threads and non-batchable ones to main threaduseMultiThreadVerifier, default to falseCloses #3792