Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 3, 2023. It is now read-only.

New Eudico ordering interface #214

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 27, 2022
Merged

New Eudico ordering interface #214

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 27, 2022

Conversation

dnkolegov
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is an implementation of the interface - https://hackmd.io/6v00B72USpav6rDUUhqxAw - that was updated recently

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #214 (e8df225) into eudico (0de97d6) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 74.28%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           eudico     #214      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   22.59%   22.65%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         609      609              
  Lines       66185    66210      +25     
==========================================
+ Hits        14957    15002      +45     
+ Misses      48549    48519      -30     
- Partials     2679     2689      +10     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
chain/consensus/common/types.go 66.66% <0.00%> (+66.66%) ⬆️
chain/consensus/mir/types.go 100.00% <ø> (ø)
chain/consensus/mir/manager.go 68.81% <70.27%> (-3.92%) ⬇️
chain/consensus/mir/app.go 67.56% <100.00%> (ø)
chain/consensus/mir/mine.go 71.62% <100.00%> (+3.76%) ⬆️
chain/consensus/mir/request_pool.go 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
miner/miner.go 44.40% <0.00%> (-2.24%) ⬇️
blockstore/buffered.go 31.11% <0.00%> (-2.23%) ⬇️
chain/stmgr/searchwait.go 51.28% <0.00%> (-1.29%) ⬇️
storage/wdpost_changehandler.go 66.98% <0.00%> (-0.95%) ⬇️
... and 8 more

if err != nil {
log.With("epoch", nextEpoch).
Errorw("unable to push cross-messages", "error", err)
}

m.SubmitRequests(ctx, refs)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I realized that this is probably called a lot, as it is in the default branch of the select statement. It looks like it creates a sort of busy-wait loop, always burning up one CPU no matter what.
It's not a big deal for now though, as I expect this branch to be part of the request pool (mempool wrapper) module, where it we'll take this into account.

This is only a comment, no direct action required, so pls mark it directly as resolved yourself when you read it.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants