Skip to content
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

Remove verifier cache entirely #3628

Merged

Conversation

antiochp
Copy link
Member

@antiochp antiochp commented Mar 31, 2021

Drastic different approach - just get rid of the verifier cache entirely.
We can revisit tx validation performance internal to the mempool in the future when required.

This is a lot of lines of changes for a relatively small functional change.
This just highlights the impact of threading it through the code everywhere.

@phyro
Copy link
Member

phyro commented Mar 31, 2021

I support removing the cache. Having no cache logic means we remove any possibility of cache validation/invalidation bugs for the next 5-10 years at least while also removing the need to maintain and reason about this layer. This makes me believe it's a good move for now.

@antiochp
Copy link
Member Author

Reintroducing some form of caching is definitely in the plan here - but it may not follow the exact same form as we see currently. Ideally it would be more limited in scope and less invasive to the codebase.

It would be crazy not to take advantage of many nodes seeing many transactions before validating full blocks if there was a way to robustly/safely/cleanly cache validation of rangeproofs and kernel signatures.

@antiochp
Copy link
Member Author

antiochp commented Apr 1, 2021

Planning to merge this later on today unless anybody has any serious objections.

@antiochp antiochp merged commit f6ec77a into mimblewimble:master Apr 1, 2021
@antiochp antiochp deleted the remove_verifier_cache_entirely branch April 1, 2021 14:04
@antiochp
Copy link
Member Author

antiochp commented Apr 1, 2021

ok merged. I'm going to open an issue to track the future cache work - got some thoughts around that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants