3dc1eb5eb6
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Paul Hauner
|
015ab7d0a7 |
Optimize validator duties (#2243)
## Issue Addressed Closes #2052 ## Proposed Changes - Refactor the attester/proposer duties endpoints in the BN - Performance improvements - Fixes some potential inconsistencies with the dependent root fields. - Removes `http_api::beacon_proposer_cache` and just uses the one on the `BeaconChain` instead. - Move the code for the proposer/attester duties endpoints into separate files, for readability. - Refactor the `DutiesService` in the VC - Required to reduce the delay on broadcasting new blocks. - Gets rid of the `ValidatorDuty` shim struct that came about when we adopted the standard API. - Separate block/attestation duty tasks so that they don't block each other when one is slow. - In the VC, use `PublicKeyBytes` to represent validators instead of `PublicKey`. `PublicKey` is a legit crypto object whilst `PublicKeyBytes` is just a byte-array, it's much faster to clone/hash `PublicKeyBytes` and this change has had a significant impact on runtimes. - Unfortunately this has created lots of dust changes. - In the BN, store `PublicKeyBytes` in the `beacon_proposer_cache` and allow access to them. The HTTP API always sends `PublicKeyBytes` over the wire and the conversion from `PublicKey` -> `PublickeyBytes` is non-trivial, especially when queries have 100s/1000s of validators (like Pyrmont). - Add the `state_processing::state_advance` mod which dedups a lot of the "apply `n` skip slots to the state" code. - This also fixes a bug with some functions which were failing to include a state root as per [this comment]( |
||
Michael Sproul
|
770a2ca030 |
Fix proposer cache priming upon state advance (#2252)
## Proposed Changes While investigating an incorrect head + target vote for the epoch boundary block 708544, I noticed that the state advance failed to prime the proposer cache, as per these logs: ``` Mar 09 21:42:47.448 DEBG Subscribing to subnet target_slot: 708544, subnet: Y, service: attestation_service Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Advanced head state one slot current_slot: 708543, state_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Completed state advance initial_slot: 708543, advanced_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:14.787 DEBG Proposer shuffling cache miss block_slot: 708544, block_root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, parent_slot: 708543, parent_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 DEBG Successfully processed gossip block root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, slot: 708544, graffiti: , service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 INFO New block received hash: 0x9b14…f9fe, slot: 708544 Mar 09 21:49:14.984 DEBG Head beacon block slot: 708544, root: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, justified_epoch: 22141, justified_root: 0x59db…e451, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:15.055 INFO Unaggregated attestation validator: XXXXX, src: api, slot: 708544, epoch: 22142, delay_ms: 53, index: Y, head: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: val_mon Mar 09 21:49:17.001 DEBG Slot timer sync_state: Synced, current_slot: 708544, head_slot: 708544, head_block: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, peers: 55, service: slot_notifier ``` The reason for this is that the condition was backwards, so that whole block of code was unreachable. Looking at the attestations for the block included in the block after, we can see that lots of validators missed it. Some of them may be Lighthouse v1.1.1-v1.2.0-rc.0, but it's probable that they would have missed even with the proposer cache primed, given how late the block 708544 arrived (the cache miss occurred 3.787s after the slot start): https://beaconcha.in/block/708545#attestations |
||
|
Paul Hauner
|
4362ea4f98 |
Fix false positive "State advance too slow" logs (#2218)
## Issue Addressed - Resolves #2214 ## Proposed Changes Fix the false positive warning log described in #2214. ## Additional Info NA |
||
|
Paul Hauner
|
88cc222204 |
Advance state to next slot after importing block (#2174)
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Add an optimization to perform `per_slot_processing` from the *leading-edge* of block processing to the *trailing-edge*. Ultimately, this allows us to import the block at slot `n` faster because we used the tail-end of slot `n - 1` to perform `per_slot_processing`.
Additionally, add a "block proposer cache" which allows us to cache the block proposer for some epoch. Since we're now doing trailing-edge `per_slot_processing`, we can prime this cache with the values for the next epoch before those blocks arrive (assuming those blocks don't have some weird forking).
There were several ancillary changes required to achieve this:
- Remove the `state_root` field of `BeaconSnapshot`, since there's no need to know it on a `pre_state` and in all other cases we can just read it from `block.state_root()`.
- This caused some "dust" changes of `snapshot.beacon_state_root` to `snapshot.beacon_state_root()`, where the `BeaconSnapshot::beacon_state_root()` func just reads the state root from the block.
- Rename `types::ShuffingId` to `AttestationShufflingId`. I originally did this because I added a `ProposerShufflingId` struct which turned out to be not so useful. I thought this new name was more descriptive so I kept it.
- Address https://github.com/ethereum/eth2.0-specs/pull/2196
- Add a debug log when we get a block with an unknown parent. There was previously no logging around this case.
- Add a function to `BeaconState` to compute all proposers for an epoch without re-computing the active indices for each slot.
## Additional Info
- ~~Blocked on #2173~~
- ~~Blocked on #2179~~ That PR was wrapped into this PR.
- There's potentially some places where we could avoid computing the proposer indices in `per_block_processing` but I haven't done this here. These would be an optimization beyond the issue at hand (improving block propagation times) and I think this PR is already doing enough. We can come back for that later.
## TODO
- [x] Tidy, improve comments.
- [x] ~~Try avoid computing proposer index in `per_block_processing`?~~
|