feat: introduce vmpool to make each vm run on single thread #272
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes involve significant modifications to the virtual machine (VM) management within the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.OpenSSF Scorecard
Scanned Manifest Files |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
x/move/keeper/vmpool.go (4)
9-17: LGTM with suggestion: Consider adding error handling for empty VM pool.The
acquireVMmethod implements robust concurrency control using both a semaphore and a mutex. This ensures thread-safe access to the VM pool while limiting the number of VMs that can be acquired simultaneously.However, there's a potential issue if the VM pool becomes empty. Consider adding error handling to deal with this scenario.
Here's a suggested modification to handle the empty pool case:
func (k Keeper) acquireVM(ctx context.Context) (vm types.VMEngine) { k.moveVMSemaphore.Acquire(ctx, 1) k.moveVMMutx.Lock() + if len(*k.moveVMs) == 0 { + k.moveVMMutx.Unlock() + k.moveVMSemaphore.Release(1) + return nil // or return an error + } vm, *k.moveVMs = (*k.moveVMs)[0], (*k.moveVMs)[1:] k.moveVMMutx.Unlock() return }
13-13: Consider usingpopfor clarity and efficiency.While the current implementation is correct, using a dedicated
popfunction might improve readability and potentially efficiency.Consider refactoring the VM removal logic:
-vm, *k.moveVMs = (*k.moveVMs)[0], (*k.moveVMs)[1:] +vm = k.popVM() // Add this helper method to the Keeper struct +func (k *Keeper) popVM() types.VMEngine { + vm := (*k.moveVMs)[0] + *k.moveVMs = (*k.moveVMs)[1:] + return vm +}
19-25: LGTM with suggestions: Consider adding safety checks.The
releaseVMmethod correctly uses a mutex to ensure thread-safe access when returning a VM to the pool. The semaphore is appropriately released after the VM is added back to the pool.To enhance robustness, consider adding the following checks:
- Ensure the VM being released is not nil.
- Optionally, implement a mechanism to prevent duplicate VMs in the pool.
Here's a suggested modification to include these safety checks:
-func (k Keeper) releaseVM(vm types.VMEngine) { +func (k Keeper) releaseVM(vm types.VMEngine) error { + if vm == nil { + return errors.New("cannot release a nil VM") + } + k.moveVMMutx.Lock() + defer k.moveVMMutx.Unlock() + + // Optional: Check for duplicates (this might be expensive for large pools) + for _, existingVM := range *k.moveVMs { + if existingVM == vm { + return errors.New("VM already exists in the pool") + } + } + *k.moveVMs = append(*k.moveVMs, vm) - k.moveVMMutx.Unlock() k.moveVMSemaphore.Release(1) + return nil }Note: The duplicate check might be expensive for large pools. Consider if this check is necessary for your use case.
1-25: Overall implementation is solid with room for improvement.The
vmpool.gofile introduces a well-structured VM pool management system with proper concurrency control using mutexes and semaphores. TheacquireVMandreleaseVMmethods provide a good foundation for managing VM resources.To further enhance the implementation, consider the following suggestions:
- Add error handling for the case when the VM pool becomes empty in
acquireVM.- Implement safety checks in
releaseVMto handle nil VMs and potentially prevent duplicate VMs.- Consider using a
popfunction for clarity and potential efficiency inacquireVM.These improvements will make the VM pool more robust and easier to maintain.
x/move/keeper/handler.go (3)
167-170: LGTM. Consider tracking the TODO for future removal.The changes appropriately implement VM acquisition and release, aligning with the PR objective of introducing a VM pool. This ensures thread-safety for VM operations.
Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the TODO for removing this code after loader v2 is installed?
568-571: LGTM. Consider refactoring for DRY principle.The changes consistently implement VM acquisition and release across all execution methods, which is excellent for maintainability. However, this repetition suggests an opportunity for refactoring.
Consider extracting the VM acquisition and release logic into a separate helper function or using a decorator pattern to apply this behavior to all execution methods. This would adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle and make future maintenance easier.
Example refactoring (pseudo-code):
func withVM(k *Keeper, ctx context.Context, f func(*VM) error) error { vm := k.acquireVM(ctx) defer k.releaseVM(vm) return f(vm) } // Then use it like: func (k Keeper) executeEntryFunction(...) error { return withVM(k, ctx, func(vm *VM) error { // existing function body, using `vm` instead of `k.moveVM` }) }This refactoring would eliminate the need for the TODO comments in each function and centralize the VM management logic.
Line range hint
1-610: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectives, but consider refactoring.The modifications consistently implement VM acquisition and release across the
executeEntryFunction,executeScript, andexecuteViewFunctionmethods. This aligns well with the PR objective of introducing a VM pool to address issues with VM sharing across threads.Key points:
- The changes enhance thread-safety for VM operations.
- The implementation is consistent across all modified functions.
- The TODO comments indicate that this is a temporary solution until loader v2 is installed.
Recommendations:
- Consider the suggested refactoring to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
- Ensure that a task is created to remove these changes once loader v2 is installed.
- Verify that the performance impact of acquiring and releasing VMs for each operation is acceptable.
x/move/keeper/keeper.go (1)
49-49: Correct the field name 'moveVMMutx' to 'moveVMMutex'There's a typo in the field name
moveVMMutx. It should bemoveVMMutexto reflect the correct spelling of "Mutex", enhancing code readability.Apply this diff to fix the field name:
- moveVMMutx *sync.Mutex + moveVMMutex *sync.Mutex
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- x/move/keeper/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- x/move/keeper/handler.go (6 hunks)
- x/move/keeper/keeper.go (4 hunks)
- x/move/keeper/vmpool.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
x/move/keeper/vmpool.go (1)
3-7: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate.The import statements are concise and relevant to the functionality implemented in this file.
x/move/keeper/genesis.go (1)
49-55: LGTM! Consider adding explanatory comments and creating a follow-up issue.The changes align well with the PR objectives of introducing a VM pool to address VM sharing issues. Here are some suggestions to improve the code further:
Add a comment explaining why VM acquisition is necessary here. This will help future developers understand the context of these changes.
Create a follow-up issue for the TODO comment on line 49. This will ensure that the temporary solution is properly tracked and addressed in the future.
Consider adding the following comment above line 50:
// Acquire a VM instance from the pool to ensure thread-safety during initializationLet's verify the impact of these changes on the rest of the codebase:
This script will help us identify any other parts of the codebase that might need to be updated to align with these changes.
x/move/keeper/handler.go (1)
287-290: LGTM. Consistent implementation across functions.The changes here mirror those in
executeEntryFunction, maintaining consistency in the VM acquisition and release process across different execution methods.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #272 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 40.60% 40.67% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 264 265 +1
Lines 25225 25258 +33
==========================================
+ Hits 10243 10274 +31
- Misses 13395 13396 +1
- Partials 1587 1588 +1
|
beer-1
force-pushed
the
feat/vm-pool
branch
from
fc85735 to
b3dd211
Compare
Description
Closes: #XXXX
We cannot share vm across threads until loader v2 installed, so create this vm pool. details
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...