Batch Reconstruction Of Bellatrix Blocks #11210
Merged
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
nisdas
added
Ready For Review
| @@ -315,6 +319,43 @@ func (s *Service) ExecutionBlockByHash(ctx context.Context, hash common.Hash, wi | |||
| return result, handleRPCError(err) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // ExecutionBlockByHashes fetches a batch of execution engine blocks by hash by calling | |||
| // eth_blockByHash via JSON-RPC. | |||
| func (s *Service) ExecutionBlockByHashes(ctx context.Context, hashes []common.Hash, withTxs bool) ([]*pb.ExecutionBlock, error) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| func (s *Service) ExecutionBlockByHashes(ctx context.Context, hashes []common.Hash, withTxs bool) ([]*pb.ExecutionBlock, error) { | |
| func (s *Service) ExecutionBlocksByHashes(ctx context.Context, hashes []common.Hash, withTxs bool) ([]*pb.ExecutionBlock, error) { |
| for _, h := range hashes { | ||
| blk := &pb.ExecutionBlock{} | ||
| err := error(nil) | ||
| newH := h |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is newH := h necessary? We worry about mutation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you dont create a new hash value, the hash value referenced will change with each iteration in the loop.
| } | ||
| for _, e := range errs { | ||
| if e != nil { | ||
| return nil, handleRPCError(e) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If one of the requests fail, do we fail the whole thing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeap, we do as the whole batch now becomes inconsistent.
| } | ||
| // Determine if the block is pre-merge or post-merge. Depending on the result, | ||
| // we will ask the execution engine for the full payload. | ||
| executionBlockHash := common.BytesToHash(header.BlockHash()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can move this to within the else right?
terencechain
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2022
rauljordan
approved these changes
Aug 15, 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.
What type of PR is this?
Feature Improvement
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
For nodes running with blinded blocks enabled, they have to request the payloads from the execution client before
being able to respond to the remote peer who requested the block range.
However currently prysm does sequential json-rpc requests for each block requested from the execution node. This is an extremely inefficient method as we have to wait for geth to marshal and prysm to unmarshal the payload before we can proceed to the next block. With addition to network latency between the consensus and execution client, timeouts can frequently occur due to how we request payloads from the execution client.
This PR instead decides to batch all json-rpc requests into a single call, thereby making it much more efficient for prysm to retrieve all the desired execution payloads from the execution client.
Which issues(s) does this PR fix?
N.A
Other notes for review