[WIP] add more broadcast logs to scroll-v5.7.11
#1075
Conversation
0xmountaintop
changed the title
scroll-v5.7.11
WalkthroughThe changes introduced in this pull request focus on enhancing logging capabilities within the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
eth/protocols/eth/broadcast.go (2)
109-111: Improved logging for transaction broadcasting.The changes enhance the visibility of the transaction broadcasting process. The new Info log provides valuable details about each transaction being sent, which can be helpful for debugging and monitoring.
Changing the error logging level from Debug to Error is appropriate, as it highlights failed transaction broadcasts more prominently.
Consider adding the peer ID to the log messages to help identify which peer is involved in the transaction broadcast. This can be achieved by using
p.ID()in the log statements.Also applies to: 114-114
187-189: Enhanced logging for transaction announcements.The changes improve the visibility of the transaction announcement process, similar to the improvements in the
broadcastTransactionsmethod. The new Info log provides detailed information about each transaction being announced, which is valuable for debugging and monitoring.Elevating the error logging level from Debug to Error is appropriate, as it gives more prominence to failed transaction announcements.
For consistency with the previous suggestion, consider adding the peer ID to these log messages as well. This can be done by including
p.ID()in the log statements.Also applies to: 192-192
eth/protocols/eth/peer.go (1)
429-431: Approve the addition of detailed logging with suggestions for optimizationThe addition of more detailed logging for each requested transaction is beneficial for debugging and monitoring. However, consider the following suggestions:
- To reduce log verbosity while maintaining the added information, you could consolidate the logging:
log.Info("Requesting transactions", "RequestId", id, "Peer.id", p.id, "count", len(hashes), "hashes", hashes)This approach logs all hashes in a single log entry, reducing the number of log lines while still providing all the necessary information.
- Consider the performance impact of logging each transaction hash, especially for large numbers of transactions. If performance is a concern, you might want to add a limit to the number of hashes logged or log only in debug mode:
if log.GetHandler().GetLevel() <= log.LvlDebug { for _, hash := range hashes { log.Debug("Requesting transaction", "RequestId", id, "Peer.id", p.id, "count", len(hashes), "hash", hash) } }eth/protocols/eth/handlers.go (2)
Line range hint
441-450: Ensure consistent error handling and logging across functionsThe changes in this function improve error visibility and add nil transaction checking, which is good. However, there are some inconsistencies with the changes made in previous functions:
Improved error logging:
The change in log level for decoding errors (line 441) is consistent with other functions and improves visibility.Nil transaction handling:
The new error log for nil transactions (line 450) is consistent with thehandleTransactionsfunction.Transaction-level logging:
Unlike the other modified functions, this one doesn't add new Info or Debug level logs for individual transactions.To maintain consistency across functions, consider the following:
- Add debug-level logging for individual transactions (when count is low):
log.Debug("handlePooledTransactions66", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs.PooledTransactionsPacket)) +if len(txs.PooledTransactionsPacket) <= 10 { + for _, tx := range txs.PooledTransactionsPacket { + log.Debug("handlePooledTransactions66", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs.PooledTransactionsPacket), "tx", tx.Hash().Hex()) + } +}
- Consider adding a metric for nil transactions, similar to
handleTransactions:if tx == nil { pooledTxs66NilMeter.Mark(1) log.Error("handlePooledTransactions: transaction is nil", "peer", peer.String(), "i", i) + nilPooledTxCounter.Inc(1) return fmt.Errorf("%w: transaction %d is nil", errDecode, i) }These changes will ensure consistency in logging and error handling across all modified functions.
Line range hint
1-459: Summary: Improve logging consistency and consider performance impactsThe changes in this file generally improve error visibility and handling across multiple functions. However, there are some inconsistencies in the implementation of transaction-level logging that should be addressed. Here's a summary of the key points:
- Error logging: The upgrade of log levels for decoding errors from Debug to Error is consistent and beneficial.
- Nil transaction handling: The addition of specific error logs for nil transactions improves error reporting.
- Transaction-level logging: The introduction of Info-level logs for individual transactions in some functions may lead to excessive verbosity and potential performance issues.
To improve the overall quality and consistency of the changes:
- Implement a consistent logging strategy across all modified functions. Consider using Debug-level logs for individual transactions and limit this to cases with a small number of transactions (e.g., 10 or fewer).
- Add metrics for nil transactions in all relevant functions to improve monitoring capabilities.
- Consider implementing a configurable verbosity level for transaction logging, allowing operators to adjust the logging detail based on their needs and system capabilities.
By addressing these points, you'll enhance the consistency of the code and provide more flexible logging options while maintaining the improved error visibility introduced by these changes.
core/tx_pool.go (1)
Line range hint
1-2000: Overall assessment: Logging changes require refinement for balance and efficiencyThe changes made to
core/tx_pool.goprimarily focus on enhancing logging capabilities. While the intent to improve visibility and debugging is commendable, the current implementation could benefit from several refinements:
Log Levels: The widespread use of
log.Errorandlog.Infofor routine operations is excessive. Consider a more balanced approach, reserving higher log levels for truly exceptional conditions.Verbosity: The addition of numerous detailed logs could lead to significant log pollution. Implement strategies to manage verbosity, such as conditional logging or aggregation of high-frequency events.
Performance: The increased logging could impact performance, especially in high-throughput scenarios. Consider the performance implications and optimize where necessary.
Security: Ensure that sensitive transaction details are not being over-exposed in logs, particularly in production environments.
Consistency: Strive for consistency in log levels, formats, and information provided across similar events.
Recommendations:
- Implement a verbose logging mode that can be toggled dynamically for debugging purposes.
- Use log aggregation for high-frequency events to provide periodic summaries instead of individual logs.
- Review and adjust log levels across the file, using
log.Debugfor most routine operations,log.Infofor noteworthy events,log.Warnfor unusual but non-critical issues, andlog.Errorfor critical problems.- Consider implementing structured logging to improve log parsing and analysis capabilities.
- Add metrics for key events (e.g., underpriced transactions, pool overflow) to complement logging and provide a more efficient way to monitor system health.
By refining the logging strategy, you can achieve the desired visibility for debugging while maintaining performance and managing log volume effectively.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- core/tx_pool.go (7 hunks)
- eth/fetcher/tx_fetcher.go (1 hunks)
- eth/handler.go (1 hunks)
- eth/protocols/eth/broadcast.go (2 hunks)
- eth/protocols/eth/handlers.go (5 hunks)
- eth/protocols/eth/peer.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
eth/protocols/eth/broadcast.go (1)
109-111: Overall improvement in logging with a note on performance.The changes successfully address the PR objective of adding more broadcast logs. The enhanced logging in both
broadcastTransactionsandannounceTransactionsmethods will significantly improve debugging capabilities and provide better insights into the transaction broadcasting process.However, it's important to consider the potential performance impact of the increased logging, especially at the Info level. To ensure these changes don't introduce any significant overhead, please run performance tests focusing on high-volume transaction scenarios. You can use the following script to analyze the impact:
Also applies to: 114-114, 187-189, 192-192
| log.Error("Failed to decode `TransactionsPacket`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | ||
| } | ||
| log.Debug("handleTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs)) | ||
| for _, tx := range txs { | ||
| log.Info("handleTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs), "tx", tx.Hash().Hex()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve logging consistency and nil transaction handling
The changes in this function follow a similar pattern to the previous ones, with improved error visibility and potentially verbose transaction logging. Additionally, there's a new check for nil transactions.
-
Verbose logging:
The Info level log for each transaction (lines 416-418) might impact performance for large transaction batches. -
Nil transaction handling:
The new error log for nil transactions (line 424) is a good addition for improved error reporting.
Consider the following changes:
- Adjust the transaction logging to be consistent with previous functions:
log.Debug("handleTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs))
-for _, tx := range txs {
- log.Info("handleTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs), "tx", tx.Hash().Hex())
+if len(txs) <= 10 {
+ for _, tx := range txs {
+ log.Debug("handleTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "len(txs)", len(txs), "tx", tx.Hash().Hex())
+ }
}- Consider adding a metric for nil transactions:
if tx == nil {
handleTxsNilMeter.Mark(1)
log.Error("handleTransactions: transaction is nil", "peer", peer.String(), "i", i)
+ nilTxCounter.Inc(1)
return fmt.Errorf("%w: transaction %d is nil", errDecode, i)
}These changes will maintain consistency with previous functions and provide additional metrics for monitoring nil transactions.
Also applies to: 424-425
| log.Error("Failed to decode `NewPooledTransactionHashesPacket`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | ||
| newPooledTxHashesFailMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | ||
| } | ||
| // Schedule all the unknown hashes for retrieval | ||
| log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann)) | ||
| for _, hash := range *ann { | ||
| log.Info("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann), "hash", hash.Hex()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider the performance impact of verbose logging
The changes improve error visibility by upgrading the log level for decoding errors from Debug to Error, which is good. However, the new Info level log for each transaction hash (line 348) might be too verbose and could potentially impact performance, especially when dealing with a large number of transactions.
Consider one of the following options:
- Remove the loop that logs each hash individually.
- Change the log level from Info to Debug for individual hash logging.
- Add a condition to only log individual hashes when their count is below a certain threshold.
Example implementation for option 3:
log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann))
-for _, hash := range *ann {
- log.Info("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann), "hash", hash.Hex())
+if len(*ann) <= 10 {
+ for _, hash := range *ann {
+ log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann), "hash", hash.Hex())
+ }
}This change will limit the logging of individual hashes to cases where there are 10 or fewer transactions, reducing the verbosity for larger batches.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| log.Error("Failed to decode `NewPooledTransactionHashesPacket`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | |
| newPooledTxHashesFailMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | |
| } | |
| // Schedule all the unknown hashes for retrieval | |
| log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann)) | |
| for _, hash := range *ann { | |
| log.Info("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann), "hash", hash.Hex()) | |
| } | |
| log.Error("Failed to decode `NewPooledTransactionHashesPacket`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | |
| newPooledTxHashesFailMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | |
| } | |
| // Schedule all the unknown hashes for retrieval | |
| log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann)) | |
| if len(*ann) <= 10 { | |
| for _, hash := range *ann { | |
| log.Debug("handleNewPooledTransactionHashes", "peer", peer.String(), "len(ann)", len(*ann), "hash", hash.Hex()) | |
| } | |
| } |
| log.Error("Failed to decode `GetPooledTransactionsPacket66`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | ||
| getPooledTxsFailMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | ||
| } | ||
| hashes, txs := answerGetPooledTransactions(backend, query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket, peer) | ||
| log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes)) | ||
| for _, hash := range hashes { | ||
| log.Info("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes), "hash", hash.Hex()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consistent logging strategy needed
Similar to the changes in handleNewPooledTransactionHashes, this function has improved error visibility by upgrading the log level for decoding errors. However, it also introduces potentially verbose logging for individual transaction hashes.
To maintain consistency and prevent performance issues, consider applying the same logging strategy as suggested for handleNewPooledTransactionHashes. For example:
log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes))
-for _, hash := range hashes {
- log.Info("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes), "hash", hash.Hex())
+if len(hashes) <= 10 {
+ for _, hash := range hashes {
+ log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes), "hash", hash.Hex())
+ }
}This change will limit the logging of individual hashes to cases where there are 10 or fewer transactions, reducing the verbosity for larger batches while maintaining consistency with the previous function.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| log.Error("Failed to decode `GetPooledTransactionsPacket66`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | |
| getPooledTxsFailMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | |
| } | |
| hashes, txs := answerGetPooledTransactions(backend, query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket, peer) | |
| log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes)) | |
| for _, hash := range hashes { | |
| log.Info("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes), "hash", hash.Hex()) | |
| } | |
| log.Error("Failed to decode `GetPooledTransactionsPacket66`", "peer", peer.String(), "err", err) | |
| getPooledTxsFailMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("%w: message %v: %v", errDecode, msg, err) | |
| } | |
| hashes, txs := answerGetPooledTransactions(backend, query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket, peer) | |
| log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes)) | |
| if len(hashes) <= 10 { | |
| for _, hash := range hashes { | |
| log.Debug("handleGetPooledTransactions", "peer", peer.String(), "RequestId", query.RequestId, "len(query)", len(query.GetPooledTransactionsPacket), "retrieved", len(hashes), "hash", hash.Hex()) | |
| } | |
| } |
| for _, hash := range hashes { | ||
| log.Info("Transactions being broadcasted to", "peer", peer.String(), "len", len(hashes), "hash", hash) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider optimizing the new logging statements.
While the additional logging provides valuable information for debugging, there are a few concerns:
- Using
log.Infofor each transaction might be too verbose. Consider usinglog.Debuginstead. - Logging inside loops could impact performance, especially with large transaction sets.
- Some information is duplicated from the existing debug logs.
Consider the following improvements:
- Change
log.Infotolog.Debugto reduce verbosity in production. - Move the logging outside the loops and aggregate the information:
for peer, hashes := range txset {
directPeers++
directCount += len(hashes)
peer.AsyncSendTransactions(hashes)
log.Debug("Transactions being broadcasted to", "peer", peer.String(), "len", len(hashes))
- for _, hash := range hashes {
- log.Info("Transactions being broadcasted to", "peer", peer.String(), "len", len(hashes), "hash", hash)
- }
}
+log.Debug("Transactions broadcast details", "directPeers", directPeers, "directCount", directCount)
for peer, hashes := range annos {
annoPeers++
annoCount += len(hashes)
peer.AsyncSendPooledTransactionHashes(hashes)
log.Debug("Transactions being announced to", "peer", peer.String(), "len", len(hashes))
- for _, hash := range hashes {
- log.Info("Transactions being announced to", "peer", peer.String(), "len", len(hashes), "hash", hash)
- }
}
+log.Debug("Transactions announcement details", "annoPeers", annoPeers, "annoCount", annoCount)This approach will provide the necessary information for debugging while minimizing the performance impact and log verbosity.
Also applies to: 531-533
| for _, hash := range hashes { | ||
| log.Info("Scheduling transaction retrieval", "peer", peer, "len(f.announces[peer])", len(f.announces[peer]), "len(hashes)", len(hashes), "hash", hash) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adjusting log levels and reducing log verbosity
The added logging statements provide valuable information for debugging the transaction retrieval process. However, there are a few considerations:
- The
log.Infolevel might be too verbose for production environments, especially when inside a loop that could potentially generate a large number of log entries. - Logging each transaction hash individually could impact performance if there are many transactions being processed.
Consider the following improvements:
- Use
log.Debuginstead oflog.Infofor detailed per-transaction logs:
-log.Info("Scheduling transaction retrieval", "peer", peer, "len(f.announces[peer])", len(f.announces[peer]), "len(hashes)", len(hashes), "hash", hash)
+log.Debug("Scheduling transaction retrieval", "peer", peer, "len(f.announces[peer])", len(f.announces[peer]), "len(hashes)", len(hashes), "hash", hash)- Add a summary log at the Info level outside the loop:
if len(hashes) > 0 {
log.Info("Scheduled transaction retrievals", "peer", peer, "announcements", len(f.announces[peer]), "retrievals", len(hashes))
}These changes will maintain the detailed logging for debugging purposes while reducing the verbosity and potential performance impact in production environments.
| log.Error("Discarding transaction due to too many changes since reorg", "hash", hash) | ||
| throttleTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return false, ErrTxPoolOverflow |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adjust log level and add context for transactions discarded due to reorg frequency.
The change from log.Trace to log.Error for transactions discarded due to frequent reorgs is an improvement in visibility, but there are some considerations:
-
Log Level: While this situation is more significant than regular transaction discards,
log.Errormight still be too severe. Consider usinglog.Warninstead. -
Context: The current message doesn't provide enough information about why this is happening. Adding more context would be beneficial for debugging and monitoring.
-
Threshold: It would be helpful to log the current threshold and the actual count of changes since the last reorg.
- log.Error("Discarding transaction due to too many changes since reorg", "hash", hash)
+ log.Warn("Discarding transaction due to high reorg frequency", "hash", hash, "changesSinceReorg", pool.changesSinceReorg, "threshold", int(pool.config.GlobalSlots/4))Consider also adding a metric to track how often this situation occurs, as it might indicate network instability or other issues that require attention.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| log.Error("Discarding transaction due to too many changes since reorg", "hash", hash) | |
| throttleTxMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return false, ErrTxPoolOverflow | |
| log.Warn("Discarding transaction due to high reorg frequency", "hash", hash, "changesSinceReorg", pool.changesSinceReorg, "threshold", int(pool.config.GlobalSlots/4)) | |
| throttleTxMeter.Mark(1) | |
| return false, ErrTxPoolOverflow |
| log.Error("Discarding freshly underpriced transaction", "hash", tx.Hash(), "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap()) | ||
| underpricedTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| pool.removeTx(tx.Hash(), false) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Harmonize logging for underpriced transactions and consider aggregation.
This log statement is very similar to the one we reviewed earlier for underpriced transactions. For consistency and improved logging practices, consider the following:
-
Log Level: As with the previous underpriced transaction log,
log.Erroris likely too severe for this normal operation. Uselog.Debugorlog.Infoinstead. -
Consistency: Ensure that the logging for all underpriced transactions (both fresh and existing) uses the same level and format.
-
Aggregation: Given that this could occur frequently during gas price fluctuations, consider aggregating these logs to prevent flooding.
-
Context: The additional
gasTipCapandgasFeeCapinformation is valuable. Consider adding the minimum required values for comparison.
- log.Error("Discarding freshly underpriced transaction", "hash", tx.Hash(), "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap())
+ log.Debug("Discarding freshly underpriced transaction", "hash", tx.Hash(), "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap(), "minTip", pool.gasPrice, "minFeeCap", pool.priced.urgent.baseFee)
+ if metrics.Enabled {
+ underpricedTxCounter.Inc(1)
+ }Additionally, implement a periodic summary log that provides an overview of underpriced transactions discarded in the last interval, including both fresh and existing ones. This would offer valuable insights without risking log saturation.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| log.Error("Discarding underpriced transaction", "hash", hash, "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap()) | ||
| underpricedTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return false, ErrUnderpriced |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adjust log level for underpriced transactions and consider aggregating logs.
The changes to this log statement have both positive and potentially problematic aspects:
Positives:
- Including
gasTipCapandgasFeeCapprovides valuable context for understanding why transactions are considered underpriced.
Areas for improvement:
- Log Level: Using
log.Errorfor underpriced transactions is likely too severe. This is a normal part of transaction pool management, especially during periods of gas price volatility. - Potential for Log Flooding: In busy networks or during gas price spikes, this could generate an excessive number of log entries.
Suggestions:
- Change the log level to
log.Debugorlog.Info. - Consider implementing an aggregated logging approach for underpriced transactions.
- log.Error("Discarding underpriced transaction", "hash", hash, "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap())
+ log.Debug("Discarding underpriced transaction", "hash", hash, "gasTipCap", tx.GasTipCap(), "gasFeeCap", tx.GasFeeCap())
+ if metrics.Enabled {
+ underpricedTxCounter.Inc(1)
+ }Also, consider adding a periodic log that summarizes the number of underpriced transactions discarded in the last interval, rather than logging each one individually.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| log.Error("Discarding overflown transaction", "hash", hash) | ||
| overflowedTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return false, ErrTxPoolOverflow |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refine logging for overflown transactions with appropriate level and additional context.
The change from log.Trace to log.Error for overflown transactions increases visibility, but there are opportunities for improvement:
-
Log Level: While a full transaction pool is significant, it's not necessarily an error condition. Consider using
log.Warninstead. -
Context: The current message doesn't provide information about the pool's state. Adding details about current capacity and limits would be beneficial for monitoring and debugging.
-
Frequency: If this condition occurs often, it might lead to log pollution. Consider implementing a rate limiter or aggregating these logs.
- log.Error("Discarding overflown transaction", "hash", hash)
+ log.Warn("Discarding transaction due to full pool", "hash", hash, "poolSize", pool.all.Count(), "capacity", pool.config.GlobalSlots+pool.config.GlobalQueue)
+ if metrics.Enabled {
+ overflownTxCounter.Inc(1)
+ }Also, consider adding a periodic summary log that provides an overview of the pool's state and the number of overflown transactions in the last interval. This would provide valuable insights without the risk of log flooding.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| log.Error("Discarding invalid transaction", "hash", hash, "err", err) | ||
| invalidTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return false, err |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reconsider log level for invalid transactions and add rate limiting.
Changing the log level for invalid transactions from log.Trace to log.Error significantly increases visibility, which can be beneficial for detecting issues. However, this approach might have some drawbacks:
- Log Pollution: If there are many invalid transactions, this could flood the error logs.
- Performance: Frequent error logging might have a slight performance impact.
While invalid transactions are more concerning than known transactions, not all of them may warrant an error log. Consider the following improvements:
- Use
log.Warninstead oflog.Errorfor most cases. - Implement a rate limiter for this log to prevent flooding.
- Consider categorizing errors and only use
log.Errorfor severe cases.
- log.Error("Discarding invalid transaction", "hash", hash, "err", err)
+ if isSevereError(err) {
+ log.Error("Discarding invalid transaction", "hash", hash, "err", err)
+ } else {
+ log.Warn("Discarding invalid transaction", "hash", hash, "err", err)
+ }
+ logInvalidTxCounter.Inc(1)Also, consider adding a rate limiter to this logging call and a function isSevereError to categorize error severity.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
core/tx_pool.go (1)
Line range hint
976-981: Adjust log level for transaction discard in promoteTxThe use of
log.Errorfor discarding a transaction during the promoteTx process may lead to unnecessary error log pollution. This operation is a normal part of transaction pool management, particularly when an older transaction is deemed better.Recommendations:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error.- Add more context to the log message to explain why the transaction is being discarded.
Example:
if !inserted { log.Debug("Discarding transaction during promotion", "hash", hash, "reason", "older transaction is better") pool.all.Remove(hash) pool.calculateTxsLifecycle(types.Transactions{tx}, time.Now()) pool.priced.Removed(1) pendingDiscardMeter.Mark(1) return false }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- core/tx_pool.go (18 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (6)
core/tx_pool.go (6)
787-789: Implement suggested changes for logging known transactionsThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level for discarding known transactions.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Debuginstead oflog.Errorfor this common occurrence.- Consider implementing aggregated logging to prevent log flooding.
804-806: Implement suggested changes for logging invalid transactionsThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level for discarding invalid transactions.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Debuginstead oflog.Errorfor this common occurrence.- Consider implementing a rate limiter for this log to prevent flooding.
- Consider categorizing errors and only use
log.Errorfor severe cases.
812-814: Implement suggested changes for logging underpriced transactionsThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level for discarding underpriced transactions.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error.- Consider implementing an aggregated logging approach for underpriced transactions.
- Add more context by including the minimum required values for comparison.
821-823: Implement suggested changes for logging transactions discarded due to reorg frequencyThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level and adding context for transactions discarded due to frequent reorgs.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Warninstead oflog.Error.- Add more context to the log message, including the current threshold and the actual count of changes since the last reorg.
- Consider adding a metric to track how often this situation occurs.
833-835: Implement suggested changes for logging overflown transactionsThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level and adding context for overflown transactions.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Warninstead oflog.Error.- Add more context about the pool's state, including current capacity and limits.
- Consider implementing a rate limiter or aggregating these logs to prevent flooding.
- Add a periodic summary log for the pool's state and the number of overflown transactions.
841-843: Implement suggested changes for logging freshly underpriced transactionsThis issue was previously identified in an earlier review. The comment remains valid and applicable. Please refer to the earlier suggestion about adjusting the log level for discarding underpriced transactions.
To reiterate the key points:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error.- Consider implementing an aggregated logging approach for underpriced transactions.
- Add more context by including the minimum required values for comparison.
- Implement a periodic summary log for underpriced transactions.
| log.Error("Dropping transactions below price threshold", "tx", tx.Hash(), "price", price) | ||
| pool.removeTx(tx.Hash(), false) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a lower log level for price-based transaction drops
The use of log.Error for dropping transactions below the price threshold may lead to excessive error logging. This operation is a normal part of transaction pool management, especially during periods of price volatility.
Suggestions:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error. - Consider implementing an aggregated logging approach for price-based drops to prevent log flooding.
Example:
if aggregatedLogs {
droppedTxCounter.Inc(1)
} else {
log.Debug("Dropping transaction below price threshold", "tx", tx.Hash(), "price", price)
}Periodically log the aggregated count:
log.Info("Dropped transactions summary", "count", droppedTxCounter.Count())| log.Error("Discarding already known skipped transaction", "hash", hash) | ||
| knownSkippedTxMeter.Mark(1) | ||
| return false, ErrAlreadyKnown |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adjust log level and add context for known skipped transactions
The current use of log.Error for discarding known skipped transactions may lead to unnecessary error log pollution. This operation is normal for miner nodes and doesn't necessarily indicate an error condition.
Recommendations:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error. - Add more context to the log message to explain why these transactions are skipped.
Example:
if pool.IsMiner() && rawdb.IsSkippedTransaction(pool.chain.Database(), hash) {
log.Debug("Discarding known skipped transaction", "hash", hash, "reason", "previously skipped by miner")
knownSkippedTxMeter.Mark(1)
return false, ErrAlreadyKnown
}|
|
||
| log.Info("already validated", "hash", hash, "from", from, "to", tx.To()) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reconsider logging level and content for transaction validation
While adding more visibility to the transaction validation process can be beneficial, the current implementation may lead to several issues:
- Log Verbosity: Using
log.Infofor these common operations could result in excessive logging, potentially impacting performance and log storage. - Security Concerns: Logging detailed transaction information (hash, from, to) at the Info level might expose sensitive data unnecessarily.
- Debug vs Info: This level of detail is typically more appropriate for debug logging.
Recommendations:
- Consider using
log.Debuginstead oflog.Infofor these messages. - Implement a mechanism to enable/disable verbose logging dynamically.
- Review the logged information to ensure no sensitive data is exposed.
Example:
func logVerbose(format string, args ...interface{}) {
if verboseLogging {
log.Debug(fmt.Sprintf(format, args...))
}
}
// Usage
logVerbose("Transaction validated", "hash", hash)| log.Error("enqueueTx: Discarding any previous transaction", "hash", old.Hash()) | ||
| pool.priced.Removed(1) | ||
| pool.calculateTxsLifecycle(types.Transactions{old}, time.Now()) | ||
| queuedReplaceMeter.Mark(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adjust log level for transaction replacement in enqueueTx
The use of log.Error for discarding a previous transaction during the enqueueTx process may lead to unnecessary error log pollution. This operation is a normal part of transaction pool management, particularly when replacing transactions with higher gas prices.
Recommendations:
- Use
log.Debugorlog.Infoinstead oflog.Error. - Add more context to the log message to clarify that this is a replacement operation.
Example:
if old != nil {
log.Debug("Replacing transaction in queue", "old_hash", old.Hash(), "new_hash", hash, "reason", "higher gas price")
pool.all.Remove(old.Hash())
pool.priced.Removed(1)
pool.calculateTxsLifecycle(types.Transactions{old}, time.Now())
queuedReplaceMeter.Mark(1)
}
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes