fix: early return for packing local deposits when EIP-6110 is applied #14697
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
This seems good sorry for the late response, could you change the changelog to the changelog fragment? it follows our new guidelines. This optimization is just a partial item to #14698 correct? you mentioned some items around the deposit cache as well. |
|
@james-prysm Sure, done at a2dc7af.
Yes, you're right. |
james-prysm
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
Optimization
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
As mentioned at #14698, a block producer in post-Electra doesn't have to consider the deposit tree from the eth1 logs. All deposits will be delivered directly via execution requests, so it is expected that
packDepositsAndAttestationswill always return the empty list of deposit.This PR addresses a performance issue when a block producer builds a block by returning earlier if EIP-6110 is fully enabled. For the worst case(someone spamming deposit transactions), the proposer should rebuild a deposit tree again and again from unfinalized one, delaying the propagation of the produced block. It seems finalization of deposit matters, but this PR could be the first step to ignoring the deposit cache.
Acknowledgements