Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing #641

aschmahmann · 2024-07-26T11:04:47Z

fixes #640

This is an attempt at splitting the ProviderQueryManager out of Bitswap so that we can configure it more in consumers.

codecov · 2024-07-26T11:10:45Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.09453% with 38 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.35%. Comparing base (c91cc1d) to head (6d9cc8b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...uting/providerquerymanager/providerquerymanager.go	83.54%	12 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
bitswap/client/client.go	84.44%	6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
exchange/providing/providing.go	62.50%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
bitswap/options.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go	50.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
bitswap/network/ipfs_impl.go	62.50%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
bitswap/testnet/virtual.go	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️
provider/noop.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #641      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.43%   60.35%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         243      244       +1     
  Lines       31059    31034      -25     
==========================================
- Hits        18771    18732      -39     
- Misses      10628    10633       +5     
- Partials     1660     1669       +9

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
bitswap/bitswap.go	`69.13% <100.00%> (+2.07%)`	⬆️
...tswap/client/internal/messagequeue/messagequeue.go	`84.92% <ø> (ø)`
bitswap/server/server.go	`56.57% <100.00%> (-5.39%)`	⬇️
bitswap/testinstance/testinstance.go	`86.44% <100.00%> (+0.23%)`	⬆️
bitswap/testnet/peernet.go	`38.46% <100.00%> (-4.40%)`	⬇️
blockservice/test/mock.go	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
examples/bitswap-transfer/main.go	`41.21% <100.00%> (ø)`
provider/provider.go	`25.74% <ø> (ø)`
provider/reprovider.go	`68.63% <100.00%> (+0.59%)`	⬆️
routing/mock/centralized_client.go	`58.53% <100.00%> (-3.97%)`	⬇️
... and 9 more

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

aschmahmann · 2024-07-26T11:14:34Z

bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go

 	FindProvidersAsync(ctx context.Context, k cid.Cid) <-chan peer.ID
 }

+type FindAllProviders struct {
+	Router bsnet.BitSwapNetwork
+}


If we're going to keep the function here as not taking a count the name should get changed from FindProvidersAsync to one that doesn't collide with the more widely used function that does take a count so implementations can use both if they want.

aschmahmann · 2024-07-26T11:17:01Z

bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go

+	provCh := make(chan peer.ID)
+	wg := &sync.WaitGroup{}
+	for p := range providers {
+		wg.Add(1)
+		go func(p peer.ID) {
+			defer wg.Done()
+			span.AddEvent("FoundProvider", trace.WithAttributes(attribute.Stringer("peer", p)))
+			err := r.Router.ConnectTo(ctx, p)
+			if err != nil {
+				span.RecordError(err, trace.WithAttributes(attribute.Stringer("peer", p)))
+				log.Debugf("failed to connect to provider %s: %s", p, err)
+				return
+			}
+			span.AddEvent("ConnectedToProvider", trace.WithAttributes(attribute.Stringer("peer", p)))
+			select {
+			case provCh <- p:
+			case <-ctx.Done():
+				return
+			}
+		}(p)
+	}
+	go func() {
+		wg.Wait()
+		close(provCh)
+	}()
+	return provCh


Note: this was copied out of the ProviderQueryManager because the internals (or at least the tests) seem to rely on having the connections made explicit here. It seems reasonable to extract this up a level out of the routing component though.

gammazero · 2024-10-28T17:41:19Z

@aschmahmann Does this mean we still want the provider query manager, and need to close #536 which removes it.

hsanjuan

I guess this comes with the need not to replace the default provider itself, but to be able to create it by hand and turn the knobs (and guessing it's mostly about increasing the amount of workers).

It is similar to #535 although that includes some other things (FindProvidersAsync returns AddrInfos instead of PeerIDs, and Router and Network are separate things).

If we need it we can merge this, otherwise the direction of #535 seems better but I guess it's a more invasive change (haven't followed too much). Code-wise I don't see anything weird, so green light on that front.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-14T14:36:05Z

bitswap/options.go

+
+func WithClientOption(opt client.Option) Option {
+	return Option{opt}
+}
+
+func WithServerOption(opt server.Option) Option {
+	return Option{opt}
+}


This was an unrelated change and should be a separate PR, I'll raise it separately. TLDR though is that bitswap.New can take options for the client or the server, but right now the only way to construct them is if they're forwarded as regular Bitswap options, otherwise you have to construct the client and server yourself. This saves on duplication while being more explicit and was something I ran into here because a new client option was introduced.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-14T14:41:19Z

bitswap/client/client.go

+func WithDefaultLookupManagement(b bool) Option {
+	return func(bs *Client) {
+		bs.useDefaultLookupManagement = true
+	}


In #535 , the Network is separated from the Router and that makes sense to me. As a user, if I want to use a custom Router, I am going to have to glue the normal Network (ConnectTo) and my custom Router (FindProvidersAsync) into a custom BitswapNetwork. I'm not sure if that requires much more refactoring though, given that #535 is based on other additional changes.

This would also allow to disable the ProviderQueryManager altogether when it is not passed in (here it's impossible).

hsanjuan · 2024-11-15T12:17:51Z

bitswap/network/ipfs_impl.go

-func (bsnet *impl) FindProvidersAsync(ctx context.Context, k cid.Cid, max int) <-chan peer.ID {
-	out := make(chan peer.ID, max)
-	go func() {
-		defer close(out)
-		providers := bsnet.routing.FindProvidersAsync(ctx, k, max)
-		for info := range providers {
-			if info.ID == bsnet.host.ID() {
-				continue // ignore self as provider
-			}
-			bsnet.host.Peerstore().AddAddrs(info.ID, info.Addrs, peerstore.TempAddrTTL)
-			select {
-			case <-ctx.Done():
-				return
-			case out <- info.ID:
-			}
-		}
-	}()
-	return out


All of this is not needed because our query manager is doing Connect(peerAddr) instead of ConnectTo(peerID). Addresses will be absorbed into the peerstore directly. At his point BSnet is only a convenience to have content router available where it is not passed explicitally.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-15T12:20:10Z

routing/providerquerymanager/providerquerymanager.go

-					span.AddEvent("FoundProvider", trace.WithAttributes(attribute.Stringer("peer", p)))
-					err := pqm.network.ConnectTo(findProviderCtx, p)
+					span.AddEvent("FoundProvider", trace.WithAttributes(attribute.Stringer("peer", p.ID)))
+					err := pqm.dialer.Connect(findProviderCtx, p)


The beauty is this can now be a libp2p.Host directly. No longer need to rely on the network having absorbed provider peer addresses into the peerstore prior to connecting because we have them here already.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-15T12:21:59Z

bitswap/client/client.go

-	pqm := bspqm.New(ctx, network)
+	if bs.pqm == nil { // not set with the options
+		// network can do dialing and also content routing.
+		pqm, err := rpqm.New(ctx, network, network, rpqm.WithMaxProviders(10))


If we don't want to pass-in a Host and a ContentRouter directly to the Client, we need to rely on Network, which has them, but it would be better to remove Content Routing capabilities from the Network because it is just wrapping the content Router and nothing else at this point.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-15T12:22:56Z

lol I meant to just comment, not approve my own changes

aschmahmann

Thanks @hsanjuan for the changes. Looks reasonable to me, left a couple questions

bitswap/client/client.go

aschmahmann · 2024-11-15T14:41:34Z

routing/mock/centralized_client.go

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ func (c *client) FindProvidersAsync(ctx context.Context, k cid.Cid, max int) <-c
 	go func() {
 		defer close(out)
 		for i, p := range c.server.Providers(k) {
-			if max <= i {


This is an unrelated fix due to this code not understanding that 0 means infinity, right?

I don't know, you did this change 🤷‍♂️

oh, lol. Yeah, that's why it's there. I was noticing some weirdness with testing.

bitswap/network/ipfs_impl.go

hsanjuan · 2024-11-15T17:12:13Z

Sync with @aschmahmann :

ProviderQueryManager looks a lot like a ContentRouter itself.
Hector proposes removing the ContentRouter (CR) part from BitSwapNetwork and passing it directly to Bitswap.New(). This is a breaking change (people need to pass CR to Bitswap.New() rather than to the bsnet.New().
Adin wants to make ContentRouter completely optional in Bitswap Client, after removing from Server. That provides further justification to break bsnet and Bitswap.New() behaviour.
When ContentRouter is provided, it might already be a disguised ProviderQueryManager, so users could:
- Use no ContentRouting
- Use their custom ContentRouting
- Use ProviderQueryManager
- This means users would need to remember to manually create ProviderQueryManager on upgrade, to keep things working as before. That's shitty and they will likely forget.
- Alternatively bitswap can:
  - Receive a ContentRouting
  - Also have an option about whether that content routing should be wrapped in a default ProviderQueryManager or not. Defaulting to yes.

I think this is the gist @aschmahmann . I think the last option would be ok (there's breakage but it both a) has a stronger reason b) is easy to fix.

aschmahmann · 2024-11-15T18:04:17Z

I think the last option would be ok (there's breakage but it both a) has a stronger reason b) is easy to fix.

Do you mean to do this?

Remove the Providing out of the Bitswap server (e.g. something like Move providing responsabilities from bitswap to blockservice #677)
Break the bitswap.Network by removing the ContentRouting
Add two options to bitswap.Client, 1 for adding a ProviderFinder and another for whether the default ProviderQueryManager should be used

Existing consumers would migrate by moving their ContentRouter from bitswap.Network into the bitswap.Client option

If so, that sounds reasonable to me. If you think pulling out the Providing is too much to do here we could also do something like:

Break the bitswap.Network by removing the ContentRouting
Add two options to bitswap.Bitswap, 1 for adding a ContentRouting and another (in bitswap.Client) for whether the default ProviderQueryManager should be used
...
In a follow up PR:
Remove the Providing out of the Bitswap server
Change the bitswap.Bitswap option to forward to a bitswap.Client option and pass a ProviderFinder instead of a ContentRouter (is just a subset so nothing should break)

hsanjuan · 2024-11-18T11:31:29Z

Remove the Providing out of the Bitswap server (e.g. something like Move providing responsabilities from bitswap to blockservice #677)

Break the bitswap.Network by removing the ContentRouting

Add two options to bitswap.Client, 1 for adding a ProviderFinder and another for whether the default ProviderQueryManager should be used

ok, currently we are here... see my review for a couple of things

bitswap/client/client.go

hsanjuan · 2024-11-18T11:39:05Z

bitswap/testnet/virtual.go

@@ -254,20 +254,20 @@ func (nc *networkClient) Stats() bsnet.Stats {
 }

 // FindProvidersAsync returns a channel of providers for the given key.
-func (nc *networkClient) FindProvidersAsync(ctx context.Context, k cid.Cid, max int) <-chan peer.ID {
+func (nc *networkClient) FindProvidersAsync(ctx context.Context, k cid.Cid, max int) <-chan peer.AddrInfo {


This can be removed now, but more important, we need to wire the mock content-router to the tests at a higher level (instance generator etc) as it is no longer in the network. currently the tests work without content routing.

hsanjuan · 2024-11-19T15:46:55Z

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ The following emojis are used to highlight certain changes:
 - `bitswap/client` fix memory leak in BlockPresenceManager due to unlimited map growth. [#636](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/pull/636)
 - `bitswap/network` fixed race condition when a timeout occurred before hole punching completed while establishing a first-time stream to a peer behind a NAT [#651](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/pull/651)
 - `bitswap`: wantlist overflow handling now cancels existing entries to make room for newer entries. This fix prevents the wantlist from filling up with CIDs that the server does not have. [#629](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/pull/629)
+- 🛠 `bitswap` & `bitswap/server` no longer provide to content routers, instead you can use the `provider` package because it uses a datastore queue and batches calls to ProvideMany.


Reminder to fix this before merge

hsanjuan · 2024-11-19T15:49:06Z

provider/provider.go

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ var logR = logging.Logger("reprovider.simple")
 // Provider announces blocks to the network
 type Provider interface {
 	// Provide takes a cid and makes an attempt to announce it to the network
-	Provide(cid.Cid) error
+	Provide(context.Context, cid.Cid, bool) error


I have updated this interface so that it matches the signature from ContentRouting, so that we can drop this interface altogether if they merge libp2p/go-libp2p#3048

It was merged, now wait for libp2p release

hsanjuan · 2024-11-19T15:50:53Z

bitswap/testinstance/testinstance.go

 )

 // NewTestInstanceGenerator generates a new InstanceGenerator for the given
 // testnet
-func NewTestInstanceGenerator(net tn.Network, netOptions []bsnet.NetOpt, bsOptions []bitswap.Option) InstanceGenerator {
+func NewTestInstanceGenerator(net tn.Network, routing mockrouting.Server, netOptions []bsnet.NetOpt, bsOptions []bitswap.Option) InstanceGenerator {


We need to pass it in from tests because some tests do want to share a mock router among the different things that use it (Blockservice/Instance etc).

hsanjuan · 2024-11-19T15:52:13Z

bitswap/testinstance/testinstance.go

@@ -84,10 +88,11 @@ func ConnectInstances(instances []Instance) {

 // Instance is a test instance of bitswap + dependencies for integration testing
 type Instance struct {
-	Peer            peer.ID
+	Identity        tnet.Identity


There is a test that needs the identity to create a mock client provider on a different provider server to test that blocks provided on a separate network are not received etc etc. so this was necessary.

bitswap/client/bitswap_with_sessions_test.go

hsanjuan · 2024-11-19T15:55:23Z

bitswap/client/client.go

+		// careful when bs.pqm is nil. Since we are type-casting it
+		// into session.ProviderFinder when passing it, it will become
+		// not nil. Related:
+		// https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/wnH302gBa4I?pli=1
+		var pqm bssession.ProviderFinder
+		if bs.pqm != nil {
+			pqm = bs.pqm
+		}


Allowing to pass nil parameters is not awesome either...

bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go

blockservice/blockservice.go

blockservice/providing_blockstore.go

hsanjuan · 2024-11-20T16:24:55Z

@aschmahmann @gammazero I have a question: I was going to port the "Provider" logic from bitswap server, with its workers and queues and what not. Then I saw that we have a provider.System (the reprovider) that does have queues, does batching and even stores pending provides to disk. Naively my thought is that, if such logic is already implemented in the reprovider, a providing.Exchange should not yet have its own way and we should just pass-in the reprovider when using it. Plus I suspect that we make use of things like Accelerated-DHT-providing, ProvideMany, so why going around...

What do you think?

aschmahmann · 2024-11-20T17:32:02Z

What do you think?

Makes sense to me to leave it out. It's unclear how useful the parallel queues were beforehand, but it seems like the kind of thing that's situational enough that people can choose to add whatever queues they need and we should start off keeping it simple and encouraging reuse of the existing queue.

routing/providerquerymanager/providerquerymanager.go

bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go

hsanjuan · 2024-11-21T17:04:29Z

ipfs/kubo#10595 is testing this.

blockservice/providing_blockstore.go

gateway/backend_blocks.go

This PR performs a rather large and touchy refactor of things related to Content providing and Content discovery previously embedded into Bitswap. The motivations: * Make ProviderQueryManager options configurable * Align and separate coalesced layers: content routing must not be part of bitswap as in the future we will be using different exchanges (bitswap, http) for retrieval and content routing should be above exchange. * Align content routing interfaces with libp2p: to avoid crust, wrappers and user confusion, align Providers and Discovery types to libp2p.ContentRouting. * Reduce duplicated functionality: i.e. code that handles providing in multiple places and fails to take advantage of ProvideMany optimizations. As a result: * ProviderQueryManager is now part of the routing module * A new providing.Exchange has been created * Bitswap initialization params have changed and Bitswap Network doesn't provide anymore (see changelog for more details) Co-authored-by: Andrew Gillis <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Adin Schmahmann <[email protected]>

hsanjuan · 2024-11-25T17:21:56Z

Squashed

self review

aschmahmann force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch from a6677c4 to f538d1f Compare July 26, 2024 11:06

aschmahmann force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch from f538d1f to e95eeb2 Compare July 26, 2024 11:11

aschmahmann commented Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

aschmahmann mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2024

feat: increase routing limits ipfs/rainbow#154

Open

lidel requested a review from hsanjuan November 12, 2024 18:01

hsanjuan approved these changes Nov 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

hsanjuan previously approved these changes Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

aschmahmann commented Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

hsanjuan mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2024

Move providing responsabilities from bitswap to blockservice #677

Closed

hsanjuan reviewed Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

hsanjuan mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2024

Provider query manager improvements #716

Closed

hsanjuan force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch 2 times, most recently from 6c00392 to 7359d9f Compare November 19, 2024 15:39

hsanjuan reviewed Nov 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

hsanjuan force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch 3 times, most recently from 94d755b to 0ca70f4 Compare November 20, 2024 16:18

gammazero mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2024

fix(bitswap/client/providerquerymanager): don't end trace span until … #725

Merged

hsanjuan reviewed Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

routing/providerquerymanager/providerquerymanager.go Show resolved Hide resolved

bitswap/client/internal/session/session.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

hsanjuan force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch from b7c5f16 to 19cd67f Compare November 21, 2024 15:32

hsanjuan marked this pull request as ready for review November 21, 2024 16:19

hsanjuan requested review from lidel and a team as code owners November 21, 2024 16:19

hsanjuan mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2024

Update to boxo with refactored providerQueryManager. ipfs/kubo#10595

Merged

hsanjuan reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

blockservice/providing_blockstore.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

hsanjuan reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

gateway/backend_blocks.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gammazero self-requested a review November 25, 2024 16:54

gammazero self-assigned this Nov 25, 2024

hsanjuan changed the title ~~configurable providerquerymanager~~ Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing Nov 25, 2024

hsanjuan force-pushed the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch from 8b304f2 to 6d9cc8b Compare November 25, 2024 17:21

gammazero approved these changes Nov 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

gammazero merged commit 37756ce into main Nov 25, 2024
15 checks passed

gammazero deleted the feat/configurable-providequerymanager branch November 25, 2024 21:09

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing #641

Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing #641

aschmahmann commented Jul 26, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

aschmahmann Jul 26, 2024

aschmahmann Jul 26, 2024

gammazero commented Oct 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hsanjuan left a comment

hsanjuan Nov 14, 2024

aschmahmann Nov 14, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 14, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 15, 2024

aschmahmann left a comment •

edited

Loading

aschmahmann Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 15, 2024

aschmahmann Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

aschmahmann commented Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hsanjuan Nov 18, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 19, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 19, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 20, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 19, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 19, 2024

hsanjuan Nov 19, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 20, 2024

aschmahmann commented Nov 20, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 21, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 25, 2024

Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing #641

Bitswap: move providing -> Exchange-layer, providerQueryManager -> routing #641

Conversation

aschmahmann commented Jul 26, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gammazero commented Oct 28, 2024 • edited Loading

hsanjuan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hsanjuan commented Nov 15, 2024

aschmahmann left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hsanjuan commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading

aschmahmann commented Nov 15, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hsanjuan commented Nov 20, 2024

aschmahmann commented Nov 20, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 21, 2024

hsanjuan commented Nov 25, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gammazero commented Oct 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

aschmahmann left a comment •

edited

Loading

hsanjuan commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hsanjuan commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading