Progpow integration #17731

holiman · 2018-09-21T10:24:16Z

This PR is a test to see how easy it would be to integrate progpow into go-ethereum. It adds a progpowBlock to the chain config, making it easy to spin up/join a network with hashimoto->progouw transition, to see how well it plays with other implementations.

For example, it would be interesting to see if this

works well on both big-endian and little-endian systems, and
if there are any quirks around fast or light sync
works with remote miners

Progpow turned out to be extremely easy to add, since it was not a new consensus engine per se, but rather an internal switchover from hashimoto to progpow inside ethash.

cc @OhGodAGirl

ghost

Looks awesome, will launch a public testnet with progpow maybe tomorrow

ghost

Compile fails

# github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/tests
tests/block_test_util.go:114:68: not enough arguments in call to ethash.NewShared
	have ()
	want (*big.Int)

I guess you missed something 😄

holiman · 2018-09-21T12:10:41Z

@eosclassicteam yup, fixed

holiman · 2018-09-21T12:14:25Z

will launch a public testnet with progpow maybe tomorrow

If you do, please make it use hashimoto for a while, so there's a proper switchover after the difficulty has set, and blocktimes are ~14s. Then we would also see how the switch affects blocktimes (though, it's a pretty moot datapoint, since it's CPU-mining and not necessarily reflects performance differences for GPU mining)

karalabe · 2018-09-21T12:19:20Z

It would probably make sense to integrate it into puppeth, because then we have everything for a testnet and don't have to hack all the pieces together individually.

ghost · 2018-09-21T12:20:24Z

@holiman Yes I would like to configure a new testnet like this one

TestnetChainConfig = &ChainConfig{
		ChainID:             big.NewInt(3),
		HomesteadBlock:      big.NewInt(0),
		DAOForkBlock:        nil,
		DAOForkSupport:      true,
		EIP150Block:         big.NewInt(0),
		EIP150Hash:          common.HexToHash("0x41941023680923e0fe4d74a34bdac8141f2540e3ae90623718e47d66d1ca4a2d"),
		EIP155Block:         big.NewInt(0),
		EIP158Block:         big.NewInt(0),
		ByzantiumBlock:      big.NewInt(0),
		ConstantinopleBlock: nil,
                ProgpowBlock:      big.NewInt(10000),
		Ethash:              new(EthashConfig),
	}

ghost · 2018-09-21T12:21:56Z

@holiman @karalabe If we can add a wrapper for puppeth it is possible to launch a ProgPOW testnet with it

holiman · 2018-09-21T12:31:00Z

done! I also added Constantinople to puppeth, seems we hadn't done so yet

karalabe · 2018-09-21T12:33:11Z

Do we have any benchmark numbers? I'm curious how much work we're putting on ourselves wrt progpow verification.

holiman · 2018-09-21T12:38:17Z

[user@work ethash]$ go test -run - -bench Benchmar.*Light
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash
BenchmarkHashimotoLight-2   	     500	   3930131 ns/op
BenchmarkProgpowLight-2     	      20	  79983262 ns/op
PASS
ok  	github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash	7.281s

Quite a big diff

holiman · 2018-09-21T12:40:11Z

Same for full:

[user@work ethash]$ go test -run - -bench Benchmar.*FullSmall
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash
BenchmarkHashimotoFullSmall-2   	  300000	      5684 ns/op
BenchmarkProgpowFullSmall-2     	    2000	    711026 ns/op
PASS
ok  	github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash	4.171s

karalabe · 2018-09-21T12:55:40Z

The full is not too relevant because (1. geth doesn't cpu mine; 2. testnet cpu mining is fine independent of the speed; 3. it's up to gpus to max the speed). The light is more problematic because that's used during sync.

Ethash was 4ms according to your benchmark, so that's 6372574 * 4ms = ~7 hours to fully verify mainnet on a single core.

ProgPoW at 80ms would mean 6372574 * 80ms = ~6 days. That's quite a bump.

AlexeyAkhunov · 2018-09-21T20:46:01Z

Going from 4ms to 80ms will also affect block propagation quite a lot. It will increase uncle rate, therefore, ostensibly, reduce miner's profitability, and increase the variability of their income.

holiman · 2018-09-21T20:58:46Z

Yup. I'm wondering, though, if some low level optimizations could bring it down an order of magnitude, or if it's inherent in the algo.

The code contains e.g. zeroing a newly alloc:ed byte array. That in itself is not a big timesink, but indicates a lack of familiarity with golang.

holiman · 2018-09-21T21:00:44Z

Would be interesting to see benchmarks comparing hashimoto vs progpow on cpp

AlexeyAkhunov · 2018-09-22T07:10:43Z

@holiman I agree - some optimisation is possible (for example, implementing "clz" and "popcount" functions more efficiently, with tricks from "Hacker's Delight" or Knuth's Volume 4 fascicle 1 "Bitwise tricks"). However, we need to first figure out why it went to 80ms, what is the main contributor

AlexeyAkhunov · 2018-09-22T20:29:07Z

I tried some optimisations (reducing allocations, passing arrays in/out functions, pop count, leading zeros) https://gist.github.com/AlexeyAkhunov/b3a5046fd2fa062b7d4c3fadc9194607, but it is still stays at 80ms, unfortunately

AlexeyAkhunov · 2018-09-22T21:03:41Z

And, most of the time is spent in the calls to the generateDatasetItem function. Each invocation of progpowLoop calls it 2 * 32 = 64 times. The function progpowLoop itself is called 64 times inside the progpow function, so generateDatasetItem is called 64 * 64 = 4096 times this way. Apart from that, the progpow function calls generateDatasetItem directly 2 * 4096 = 8192 times. In total, progpow calls generateDatasetItem 4096 + 8192 = 12288 times. Hashimoto, on the other hand, cals generateDatasetItem only 64 * 2 = 128 times. My calculations might be off by a factor, but the general idea should be clear - it simply does too much access. Perhaps that was a mistake?

ghost · 2018-09-22T22:35:20Z

@AlexeyAkhunov Perhaps ProgPOW's design might be poor for verification, I hope it's not, we can still find a way to implement it 😂

AlexeyAkhunov · 2018-09-22T22:59:22Z

@eosclassicteam Efficient verification is one of the important design requirement for a good PoW algorithm. Perhaps it has not been considered. But if the verification performance is so poor, ProgPow hinders too many things - light clients, block propagation (block gas limit will have to be reduced to support that), sync performance - it will take much longer to sync. Everything will get much slower

ifdefelse · 2018-09-23T11:52:24Z

Hi all.

The ProgPoW team is looking into this- the CPU verification side is being copied from the whitepaper code, which was required for our own internal testing with ethminer, but obviously not required for proper client implementation. We'll look into this.

Also, yes, Go isn't our strongest language- we're hoping that the geth team will be able to help with actual optimizations on that side.

MoneroCrusher · 2018-09-25T11:58:59Z

@AlexeyAkhunov @karalabe @holiman according to ProgPOW devs it's a bug that is being addressed. Real verification time will be 8ms, not 80ms. Therefore not a problem.

Arachnid · 2018-09-25T12:01:18Z

@AlexeyAkhunov @karalabe @holiman according to ProgPOW devs it's a bug that is being addressed. Real verification time will be 8ms, not 80ms. Therefore not a problem.

Please let them speak for themselves. They're here on the thread; trying to talk for them just confuses matters.

MoneroCrusher · 2018-09-25T12:19:03Z

@AlexeyAkhunov @karalabe @holiman according to ProgPOW devs it's a bug that is being addressed. Real verification time will be 8ms, not 80ms. Therefore not a problem.

Please let them speak for themselves. They're here on the thread; trying to talk for them just confuses matters.

I mainly made that post so it is publicly posted and that the public knows that ~8ms (of course it depends on the CPU and how many cores are utilized) is the real number after the bug is eliminated, not 80ms (I did not know this until 1 hour ago). ProgPOW devs have said they'd rather not engage in too much public discussions anymore. I expect that the people I tagged above know this already, but tagged them anyway in case they didn't. It's important that the public stays up to date too on latest developments as not everyone is part of the discord group(s).
Of course I'm not stopping the ProgPOW devs from propagating that info themselves.

ifdefelse · 2018-09-25T22:15:16Z

There is a slight performance improvement at ifdefelse/go-ethereum mainly reducing the number of generateDatasetItem calls (lookups), producing the following results:

$ go test -run - -bench Benchmark.*Light
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash
BenchmarkHashimotoLight-8                   1000           1565141 ns/op
BenchmarkProgpowLight-8                      100          16306560 ns/op
BenchmarkProgpowOptimalLight-8               300           5343173 ns/op
PASS
ok      github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash        10.158s

BenchmarkProgpowLight tests the drop-in replacement, while BenchmarkProgpowOptimalLight pregenerates some data which is only implemented in the test right now.

There is still room for improvement, for example all the math can be done as SSE vectors instead of iterative loops. A well-optimized implementation should end up being about just 2x slower than the ethash verification as there is twice as much data read per iteration.

ghost · 2018-09-26T04:05:12Z

@ifdefelse Yes I think this is a remarkable change well done 👍

holiman · 2020-03-02T08:51:59Z

Rebased on master, squashed most commits

holiman · 2020-09-23T08:27:37Z

Rebased, and afaik up to date with https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1057.md at 0.9.3. cc @gcolvin

…est for it

…ntation. Do note that cDag should be generated once per epoch which results in additional performance gains as shown by BenchmarkProgpowOptimalLight over BenchmarkProgpowLight. + make use of pregenerated cdag for progpow, add testcases + update keccakf800 output, fix full verification, fix order of mixhash/finalhash

…hain spec + reuse cdag

holiman · 2020-10-05T12:16:29Z

consensus/ethash/algorithm.go

+ }
+
+ elapsed := time.Since(start)
+ log.Info("Generated progpow cDag", "elapsed", common.PrettyDuration(elapsed), "epoch", epoch)


Suggested change

log.Info("Generated progpow cDag", "elapsed", common.PrettyDuration(elapsed), "epoch", epoch)

log.Debug("Generated progpow cDag", "elapsed", common.PrettyDuration(elapsed), "epoch", epoch)

MariusVanDerWijden · 2021-10-29T09:06:09Z

This PR became quite stale. With all the work on the merge, I think it is time to retire this PR cc @holiman

holiman requested a review from karalabe as a code owner September 21, 2018 10:24

holiman changed the title ~~Implement Progpow~~ Poc integration of progpow Sep 21, 2018

ghost approved these changes Sep 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

ghost suggested changes Sep 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

holiman force-pushed the progpow branch from 4a8c1f5 to a66480e Compare September 21, 2018 12:10

Daft-Wullie mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2018

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 47 Agenda ethereum/pm#58

Closed

holiman force-pushed the progpow branch from 3fcfec5 to e822a0d Compare April 10, 2019 11:07

adamschmideg added the status:triage label Jul 24, 2019

adamschmideg added priority:1 and removed status:triage labels Aug 1, 2019

karalabe mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2019

Istanbul hard-fork meta #19919

Closed

10 tasks

karalabe added the istanbul label Aug 6, 2019

karalabe added fork:berlin and removed istanbul labels Aug 19, 2019

karalabe mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2019

Berlin hard-fork meta #19994

Closed

8 tasks

holiman requested a review from rjl493456442 as a code owner January 28, 2020 11:05

holiman force-pushed the progpow branch from d7a0b54 to 41e7da0 Compare March 2, 2020 08:50

adamschmideg added the status:triage label Mar 3, 2020

fjl removed fork:berlin status:triage labels Mar 10, 2020

fjl added this to the Backlog milestone Mar 10, 2020

adamschmideg added the status:backlog label Mar 10, 2020

holiman force-pushed the progpow branch from d3a2013 to 5263e7c Compare September 23, 2020 08:26

ifdefelse and others added 6 commits October 5, 2020 13:45

consensus/ethash:Added implementation of ProgPoW algorithm and unit t…

367fd89

…est for it

params, puppeth, ethash: go fmt + integrate progpow + benchmarks

384a9bc

progpow, eth, ethash, puppeth, consensus: implement v0.9.2 + parity c…

74bcf0b

…hain spec + reuse cdag

progpow: implement v0.9.3

523f284

ethash: fix initialization flaw

3fc6dd8

holiman force-pushed the progpow branch from 5263e7c to 3fc6dd8 Compare October 5, 2020 11:47

holiman commented Oct 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

holiman closed this Oct 29, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Progpow integration #17731

Progpow integration #17731

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

ghost left a comment

ghost left a comment

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

ghost commented Sep 21, 2018 •

edited by ghost

Loading

ghost commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ghost commented Sep 22, 2018 •

edited by ghost

Loading

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

ifdefelse commented Sep 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading

MoneroCrusher commented Sep 25, 2018

Arachnid commented Sep 25, 2018

MoneroCrusher commented Sep 25, 2018

ifdefelse commented Sep 25, 2018

ghost commented Sep 26, 2018

holiman commented Mar 2, 2020

holiman commented Sep 23, 2020

holiman Oct 5, 2020

MariusVanDerWijden commented Oct 29, 2021

	log.Info("Generated progpow cDag", "elapsed", common.PrettyDuration(elapsed), "epoch", epoch)
	log.Debug("Generated progpow cDag", "elapsed", common.PrettyDuration(elapsed), "epoch", epoch)

Progpow integration #17731

Progpow integration #17731

Conversation

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

ghost commented Sep 21, 2018 • edited by ghost Loading

ghost commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018 • edited Loading

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

karalabe commented Sep 21, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018 • edited Loading

ghost commented Sep 22, 2018 • edited by ghost Loading

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018

ifdefelse commented Sep 23, 2018 • edited Loading

MoneroCrusher commented Sep 25, 2018

Arachnid commented Sep 25, 2018

MoneroCrusher commented Sep 25, 2018

ifdefelse commented Sep 25, 2018

ghost commented Sep 26, 2018

holiman commented Mar 2, 2020

holiman commented Sep 23, 2020

holiman Oct 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MariusVanDerWijden commented Oct 29, 2021

ghost commented Sep 21, 2018 •

edited by ghost

Loading

holiman commented Sep 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

AlexeyAkhunov commented Sep 22, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ghost commented Sep 22, 2018 •

edited by ghost

Loading

ifdefelse commented Sep 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading