Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 22, 2025. It is now read-only.

propose refactor banking buffer to include writable accounts info #28577

Conversation

tao-stones
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

Some recent works on improving block producing efficiency lead to the idea of refactoring banking buffer. While it may not be the most urgent task, but worth document for discussion.

Summary of Changes

  • document the proposal

Fixes #

@apfitzge
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for documenting the idea!

... ...
]
),
(98, [ ([tx1, ...]), // txs write to account A
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this tx1, tx2, tx3 are unrelated to the tx1, tx3 from the 99 priority bin, right? Can we change the suffix numbers so that is more clear

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

they could be the transactions do exactly same thing, except different priority.


# concerns

1. Too many priority level may hurt performance,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we know what the priority distribution looks like in these conditions:

  1. Normal conditions
  2. Busy mint events?


/// a FIFO queue for packets that write to same account at same priority
struct Packets {
packets: deque<Arc<DeserializedPacket>>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

quick note - if we're storing attempted, retryable, forwarded on the DeserializedPacket we shouldn't wrap DeserializedPacket in an Arc - need some interior mutability (refcell?).

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale [bot only] Added to stale content; results in auto-close after a week. label Dec 29, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Jan 9, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
stale [bot only] Added to stale content; results in auto-close after a week.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants