Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
183 lines (148 loc) · 8.74 KB

adr-105-refactor-mempool-senders.md

File metadata and controls

183 lines (148 loc) · 8.74 KB
Raw

ADR 105: Refactor list of senders in mempool

Changelog

  • 2023-07-19: Choose callbacks option and mark as accepted (@hvanz)
  • 2023-07-10: Add callback alternative (@hvanz)
  • 2023-06-26: Initial draft (@hvanz)

Status

Accepted

Context

Before adding a transaction to the mempool or deciding to keep it in the mempool after a block execution, we need to send a CheckTx message to the application for validating the transaction. There are two variants of this message, distinguished by the value in message field type:

  • CheckTxType_New is for transactions that need to be validated before adding it to the mempool.
  • CheckTxType_Recheck is for transactions that are in the mempool and need to be re-validated after committing a block and advancing to the next height.

The mempool communicates with the ABCI server (that is, the application) by sending abci.Requests through the proxy AppConnMempool. The proxy provides a callback mechanism for handling abci.Responses. The current mempool implementation CListMempool (also called v0) utilizes this mechanism for Recheck transactions but not for New transactions. Instead New transactions require an ad-hoc mechanism for each request.

The reason behind this difference is that for New transactions we need to record the ID of the peer that sent the transaction. However, this information is not included in RequestCheckTx messages. Recording the sender's ID is necessary for the transaction propagation protocol, which uses the recorded list of senders to prevent sending the transaction back to these peers, thus avoiding sending duplicated messages. More importantly, this mechanism serves as the only means to stop propagating transactions.

There are two design problems with this implementation. First, there is a complex pattern for handling callbacks on New requests. The following code snippet at the end of the CheckTx method, where transactions received for the first time are processed, demonstrates the issue:

	reqRes, err := mem.proxyAppConn.CheckTxAsync(context.TODO(), &abci.RequestCheckTx{Tx: tx})
	reqRes.SetCallback(mem.reqResCb(tx, txInfo, cb))

When we send a request for validating a transaction via CheckTxAsync, it returns a ReqRes object. To handle the response asynchronously, we set an ad-hoc callback reqResCb on ReqRes. This callback is different for each transaction tx because it's parameterized by tx, txInfo (which essentially contains the sender ID), and another callback function cb provided by the caller of CheckTx to be applied on the response.

Secondly, the list of senders for each transaction is recorded directly in the mempool's txs data structure. However, the list of senders is an important component of the propagation protocol and it should be part of the reactor, while txs is part of the implementation of this specific version (v0) of the mempool.

In this document, we propose a solution that involves moving the list of senders from the mempool implementation to the reactor. This change will simplify the code, establish a more clear separation of the propagation protocol and the data structure, and allow for future improvements to the mempool as a whole.

Detailed Design

We propose the following changes to the mempool's reactor and the CListMempool implementation.

  • In the Mempool interface, change the signature of CheckTx from 
    CheckTx(tx types.Tx, cb func(*abci.ResponseCheckTx), txInfo TxInfo) error
    to 
    CheckTx(tx types.Tx) (abcicli.ReqRes, error)
    • The returning ReqRes object can be used to set and invoke a callback to handle the response, if needed.
    • The callback parameter cb is no longer needed. Currently, this is mainly used by the RPC endpoints broadcast_tx_sync and broadcast_tx_commit, and in tests for checking that the response is valid. However, the same functionality can be obtained with ReqRes response.
    • txInfo contains information about the sender, which is also no longer needed, as justified by the next point.
  • The list of senders for each transaction is currently stored in mempoolTx, the data structure for the entries of txs. Move the senders out of mempoolTx to a new map txSenders of type map[types.TxKey]map[uint16]bool in the mempool reactor. txSenders would map transaction keys to a set of peer ids (of type uint16). Add also a cmtsync.RWMutex lock to handle concurrent accesses to the map.
    • This refactoring should not change the fact that the list of senders live as long as the transactions are in the mempool. When a transaction is received by the reactor (either via RPC or P2P), we call CheckTx. We know whether a transaction is valid and was included in the mempool by reading the ReqRes response. If this is the case, record the list of senders in txSenders. When a transaction is removed from the mempool, notify the reactor to remove the list of senders for that transaction, with the channel described below.
  • In CListMempool, resCbFirstTime is the function that handles responses of type CheckTxType_New. Instead of setting it as an ad-hoc callback on each transaction, we could now call it directly from globalCb, where responses of type CheckTxType_Recheck are already being handled.

Alternatives

Communicating that a transaction was removed from the mempool

We have identified two approaches for communicating the removal of a transaction from the mempool to the reactor.

  1. With a channel and an infinite loop in a goroutine.
  • In CListMempool, introduce a new channel txsRemoved of type chan types.TxKey to notify the mempool reactor that a transaction was removed from the mempool.
  • In the mempool reactor, spawn a goroutine to handle incoming transaction keys from the txsRemoved channel. For each key received, update txSenders.
  • Add methods TxsRemoved() <-chan types.TxKey and EnableTxsRemoved() to the Mempool interface.
  1. With a callback.
  • In the mempool reactor's constructor, set a callback function in CListMempool. The callback takes a transaction key as parameter. When invoked, it will update txSenders.
  • CListMempool stores the callback function as part of its state. When a transaction is removed from the mempool, the callback is invoked.
  • Add a method SetTxRemovedCallback(cb func(types.TxKey)) to the Mempool interface.

The channel and goroutine mechanism is the same used by the mempool to notify the consensus reactor when there are transactions available to be included in a new block. The advantage of the callback is that it is immediately called when a transaction is removed, reducing the chances of data races.

In any case, adding and removing the same transaction from the mempool is unlikely to happen in parallel. A transaction is removed from the mempool either:

  1. on updating the mempool, when the transaction is included in a block, or
  2. when handling a Recheck CheckTx response, when the transaction was deemed invalid by the application.

In both cases, the transaction will still be in the cache. So, if the same transaction is received again, it will be discarded by the cache, and thus not added to the mempool and txSenders.

Decision

We have chosen the second option of using a callback because it reduces the chances of concurrent accesses to the list of senders and it removes the transaction immediately, keeping the mempool and the list of senders better synchoronized.

Consequences

The refactoring proposed here does not affect how users and other peers interact with the mempool. It will only change how transaction metadata is stored internally.

Positive

  • Get rid of the complex design pattern of callbacks for handling CheckTxType_New responses.
  • Clear separation of propagation protocol in the reactor and the mempool implementation.
  • Allow for future improvements to both the propagation protocol and the mempool implementation.

Negative

  • If chosen, adding a channel and a goroutine for communicating that a transaction was removed may increase the concurrency complexity.

Neutral

  • We would need to extend the existing tests to cover new scenarios related to the new data structures and some potential concurrent issues.

References

The trigger for this refactoring was this comment, where we discussed improvements to the concurrency in the mempool.