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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
fix: limit vsc matured packets handled per endblocker #1004
fix: limit vsc matured packets handled per endblocker #1004
Changes from 7 commits
ffbd353
15031b1
8fb8a58
5b04df5
5885ba0
0480109
b99e745
cf5c452
663dc77
ba0d6ab
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if this is strictly neccessary, but it will ensure that we change throttling behavior as little as possible
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the reasoning behind this check? If during HandleLeadingVSCMaturedPackets there were 100 packets handled, then without this line we'll handle one more in this block, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The behavior you've described sounds correct as far as what would happen. I added this check here because it'll keep the handling order as similar as possible to what existed previously
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ie. before this PR we always handle all VSC matured packets that're at the head of the queue, before any slash packets. This line keeps that behavior consistent. Is it strictly needed? Probably and hopefully not, just good practice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not a fan of assuming that
seqNums
will be constructed s.t. the value at index 0 always corresponds to the slash packet, and all trailing indexes correspond to vsc matured.The tests around
GetSlashAndTrailingData
do validate the behavior I've described. However a better solution would be to refactorGetSlashAndTrailingData
so that it returns structs that look something like..This is a trivial code change, but it'll likely make a large diff in
throttle_test.go