1. Apr 25, 2024
  2. Apr 18, 2024
    • Alexandru Gheorghe's avatar
      Fix next_retry busy waiting on first retry (#4192) · 0e552893
      Alexandru Gheorghe authored
      
      
      The `next_retry_time` gets populated when a request receives an error
      timeout or any other error, after thatn next_retry would check all
      requests in the queue returns the smallest one, which then gets used to
      move the main loop by creating a Delay
      ```
      futures_timer::Delay::new(instant.saturating_duration_since(Instant::now())).await,
      ```
      
      However when we retry a task for the first time we still keep it in the
      queue an mark it as in flight so its next_retry_time would be the oldest
      and it would be small than `now`, so the Delay will always triggers, so
      that would make the main loop essentially busy wait untill we received a
      response for the retry request.
      
      Fix this by excluding the tasks that are already in-flight.
      
      ---------
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarAndrei Sandu <[email protected]>
      0e552893
  3. Apr 08, 2024
    • Aaro Altonen's avatar
      Integrate litep2p into Polkadot SDK (#2944) · 80616f6d
      Aaro Altonen authored
      [litep2p](https://github.com/altonen/litep2p) is a libp2p-compatible P2P
      networking library. It supports all of the features of `rust-libp2p`
      that are currently being utilized by Polkadot SDK.
      
      Compared to `rust-libp2p`, `litep2p` has a quite different architecture
      which is why the new `litep2p` network backend is only able to use a
      little of the existing code in `sc-network`. The design has been mainly
      influenced by how we'd wish to structure our networking-related code in
      Polkadot SDK: independent higher-levels protocols directly communicating
      with the network over links that support bidirectional backpressure. A
      good example would be `NotificationHandle`/`RequestResponseHandle`
      abstractions which allow, e.g., `SyncingEngine` to directly communicate
      with peers to announce/request blocks.
      
      I've tried running `polkadot --network-backend litep2p` with a few
      different peer configurations and there is a noticeable reduction in
      networking CPU usage. For high load (`--out-peers 200`), networking CPU
      usage goes down from ~110% to ~30% (80 pp) and for normal load
      (`--out-peers 40`), the usage goes down from ~55% to ~18% (37 pp).
      
      These should not be taken as final numbers because:
      
      a) there are still some low-hanging optimization fruits, such as
      enabling [receive window
      auto-tuning](https://github.com/libp2p/rust-yamux/pull/176
      
      ), integrating
      `Peerset` more closely with `litep2p` or improving memory usage of the
      WebSocket transport
      b) fixing bugs/instabilities that incorrectly cause `litep2p` to do less
      work will increase the networking CPU usage
      c) verification in a more diverse set of tests/conditions is needed
      
      Nevertheless, these numbers should give an early estimate for CPU usage
      of the new networking backend.
      
      This PR consists of three separate changes:
      * introduce a generic `PeerId` (wrapper around `Multihash`) so that we
      don't have use `NetworkService::PeerId` in every part of the code that
      uses a `PeerId`
      * introduce `NetworkBackend` trait, implement it for the libp2p network
      stack and make Polkadot SDK generic over `NetworkBackend`
        * implement `NetworkBackend` for litep2p
      
      The new library should be considered experimental which is why
      `rust-libp2p` will remain as the default option for the time being. This
      PR currently depends on the master branch of `litep2p` but I'll cut a
      new release for the library once all review comments have been
      addresses.
      
      ---------
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexandru Vasile <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarDmitry Markin <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarAlexandru Vasile <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarAlexandru Vasile <[email protected]>
      80616f6d
  4. Apr 03, 2024
  5. Feb 12, 2024
  6. Jan 29, 2024
  7. Jan 10, 2024
    • Alin Dima's avatar
      add fallback request for req-response protocols (#2771) · f2a750ee
      Alin Dima authored
      Previously, it was only possible to retry the same request on a
      different protocol name that had the exact same binary payloads.
      
      Introduce a way of trying a different request on a different protocol if
      the first one fails with Unsupported protocol.
      
      This helps with adding new req-response versions in polkadot while
      preserving compatibility with unupgraded nodes.
      
      The way req-response protocols were bumped previously was that they were
      bundled with some other notifications protocol upgrade, like for async
      backing (but that is more complicated, especially if the feature does
      not require any changes to a notifications protocol). Will be needed for
      implementing https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/pull/47
      
      TODO:
      - [x]  add tests
      - [x] add guidance docs in polkadot about req-response protocol
      versioning
      f2a750ee
    • ordian's avatar
      statement-distribution: validator disabling (#1841) · a4195326
      ordian authored
      
      
      Closes #1591.
      
      The purpose of this PR is filter out backing statements from the network
      signed by disabled validators. This is just an optimization, since we
      will do filtering in the runtime in #1863 to avoid nodes to filter
      garbage out at block production time.
      
      - [x] Ensure it's ok to fiddle with the mask of manifests
      - [x] Write more unit tests
      - [x] Test locally
      - [x] simple zombienet test
      - [x] PRDoc
      
      ---------
      
      Co-authored-by: default avatarTsvetomir Dimitrov <[email protected]>
      a4195326
  8. Dec 13, 2023
    • Alexandru Gheorghe's avatar
      Approve multiple candidates with a single signature (#1191) · a84dd0db
      Alexandru Gheorghe authored
      Initial implementation for the plan discussed here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/701
      Built on top of https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/1178
      v0: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/pull/7554,
      
      ## Overall idea
      
      When approval-voting checks a candidate and is ready to advertise the
      approval, defer it in a per-relay chain block until we either have
      MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT candidates to sign or a candidate has stayed
      MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS in the queue, in both cases we sign what
      candidates we have available.
      
      This should allow us to reduce the number of approvals messages we have
      to create/send/verify. The parameters are configurable, so we should
      find some values that balance:
      
      - Security of the network: Delaying broadcasting of an approval
      shouldn't but the finality at risk and to make sure that never happens
      we won't delay sending a vote if we are past 2/3 from the no-show time.
      - Scalability of the network: MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT = 1 &
      MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS =0, is what we have now and we know from
      the measurements we did on versi, it bottlenecks
      approval-distribution/approval-voting when increase significantly the
      number of validators and parachains
      - Block storage: In case of disputes we have to import this votes on
      chain and that increase the necessary storage with
      MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT * CandidateHash per vote. Given that
      disputes are not the normal way of the network functioning and we will
      limit MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT in the single digits numbers, this
      should be good enough. Alternatively, we could try to create a better
      way to store this on-chain through indirection, if that's needed.
      
      ## Other fixes:
      - Fixed the fact that we were sending random assignments to
      non-validators, that was wrong because those won't do anything with it
      and they won't gossip it either because they do not have a grid topology
      set, so we would waste the random assignments.
      - Added metrics to be able to debug potential no-shows and
      mis-processing of approvals/assignments.
      
      ## TODO:
      - [x] Get feedback, that this is moving in the right direction. @ordian
      @sandreim @eskimor @burdges, let me know what you think.
      - [x] More and more testing.
      - [x]  Test in versi.
      - [x] Make MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT &
      MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_WAIT_MILLIS a parachain host configuration.
      - [x] Make sure the backwards compatibility works correctly
      - [x] Make sure this direction is compatible with other streams of work:
      https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/635 &
      https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/742
      
      
      - [x] Final versi burn-in before merging
      
      ---------
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>
      a84dd0db
  9. Dec 05, 2023
  10. Nov 14, 2023
  11. Oct 21, 2023
  12. Sep 27, 2023