Backport TxPool limits to release/1.4 #3116
Conversation
|
Thank you for your contribution! Your commits seem to not adhere to the repository coding standards
Please check the contribution guidelines for more details. This message was auto-generated by https://gitcop.com |
| var drops types.Transactions | ||
|
|
||
| sort.Sort(*m.index) | ||
| for size := len(m.items); size > threshold; size-- { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm probably wrong, but it looks like it would be possible to remove all extraneous items in one go, instead of doing them one at a time in an loop...?
| } | ||
| // Otherwise start accumulating incremental transactions | ||
| var ready types.Transactions | ||
| for next := (*m.index)[0]; m.index.Len() > 0 && (*m.index)[0] == next; next++ { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks strange to me: for next := (*m.index)[0]; ...&& (*m.index)[0] == next . Assignment first, then validating that the assignment worked?
| // This method uses the cached costcap to quickly decide if there's even a point | ||
| // in calculating all the costs or if the balance covers all. If the threshold is | ||
| // lower than the costcap, the costcap will be reset to a new high after removing | ||
| // expensive the too transactions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"the too expensive transactions"
| maxQueued = 64 // max limit of queued txs per address | ||
| var ( | ||
| maxQueuedPerAccount = uint64(64) // Max limit of queued transactions per address | ||
| maxQueuedInTotal = uint64(65536) // Max limit of queued transactions from all accounts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't that a bit large? Seeing as how nodes are toppling at 10k transactions
| delete(txs, hash) | ||
| // Otherwise postpone any invalidated transactions | ||
| for _, tx := range invalids { | ||
| pool.enqueueTx(tx.Hash(), tx) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the timer in expirationLoop starts deleting transactions from an account, it will start by deleting the lowest nonce. It looks like litle loop here will add back all the resulting invalids, and expirationLoop will have to iterate through all of them, rebuilding the cache in every loop. Looks suboptimal to me...?
(cherry picked from commit 16d8397)
|
Thank you for your contribution! Your commits seem to not adhere to the repository coding standards
Please check the contribution guidelines for more details. This message was auto-generated by https://gitcop.com |
|
Thank you for your contribution! Your commits seem to not adhere to the repository coding standards
Please check the contribution guidelines for more details. This message was auto-generated by https://gitcop.com |
This backports the changes from #2742.