core/txpool: improve Add() logic, handle edge case#2754
Merged
Conversation
zzzckck
reviewed
Nov 18, 2024
zzzckck
reviewed
Nov 18, 2024
zzzckck
previously approved these changes
Nov 20, 2024
galaio
previously approved these changes
Nov 20, 2024
MatusKysel
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
galaio
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
zzzckck
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This PR simplifies the logic by doing the checks regarding availability of slots in the Add() function of the OverflowPool rather than before where this logic was outside.
This also addressed an edge case where if the OverflowPool is full, we simply take out one transaction and put the new one in. But this might result in the pool size exceeding its limit because the new transaction might have more slots than the older transaction.
Also fix the bug: we were comparing number of transactions with number of slots here:
if uint64(len(tp.txHeap)) >= tp.maxSizeSlots should be compared with slots.
Added TestTxOverflowPoolSlotCalculation() to capture the bug in the previous code.
The current change ensures we never exceed the set total size of the overflow pool.