This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
PVF validation host: Remove nice changing code #4520
Assignees
Comments
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 14, 2021
We wanted to change niceness to accomodate the fact that some of the preparation tasks are low priority. For example, when a node sees that there is a new para was onboarded the node may start preparing right away. Since all other activities are more important, such as network I/O or validation of the backed candidates and preparation of the immediatelly needed PVFs. However, it turned out that this approach does not work: generally non-root processes can only decrease niceness and they cannot increase it to the previous value, as was assumed by the code. Apart from that, #4123 assumes all PVFs are prepared in the same way. Specifically, that if a PVF preparation failed before, then PVF pre-checking will also report that it was failed, even though it could happen that preparation failed due to being low-priority. In order to avoid such cases, we decided to simplify the whole preparation model. Preparation under low priority does not work well with that. Closes #4520
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 14, 2021
We wanted to change niceness to accomodate the fact that some of the preparation tasks are low priority. For example, when a node sees that there is a new para was onboarded the node may start preparing right away. Since all other activities are more important, such as network I/O or validation of the backed candidates and preparation of the immediatelly needed PVFs. However, it turned out that this approach does not work: generally non-root processes can only decrease niceness and they cannot increase it to the previous value, as was assumed by the code. Apart from that, #4123 assumes all PVFs are prepared in the same way. Specifically, that if a PVF preparation failed before, then PVF pre-checking will also report that it was failed, even though it could happen that preparation failed due to being low-priority. In order to avoid such cases, we decided to simplify the whole preparation model. Preparation under low priority does not work well with that. Closes #4520
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
We have a mechanism for setting the priority for the worker process. Due to #3211 we probably won't need that and it does not work anyway in the present form. We should consider removing it altogether.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: