| # Coding Guidelines |
|
|
| <!-- markdown-toc start - Don't edit this section. Run M-x markdown-toc-refresh-toc --> |
| **Table of Contents** |
|
|
| - [Coding Guidelines](#coding-guidelines) |
| - [Hierarchical State Machines](#hierarchical-state-machines) |
| - [Conventions for `poll` implementations](#conventions-for-poll-implementations) |
| - [Prioritize local work over new work from a remote](#prioritize-local-work-over-new-work-from-a-remote) |
| - [Bound everything](#bound-everything) |
| - [Channels](#channels) |
| - [Local queues](#local-queues) |
| - [Tasks](#tasks) |
| - [Further reading](#further-reading) |
| - [No premature optimizations](#no-premature-optimizations) |
| - [Keep things sequential unless proven to be slow](#keep-things-sequential-unless-proven-to-be-slow) |
| - [Use `async/await` for sequential execution only](#use-asyncawait-for-sequential-execution-only) |
| - [Don't communicate by sharing memory; share memory by communicating.](#dont-communicate-by-sharing-memory-share-memory-by-communicating) |
| - [Further Reading](#further-reading) |
| - [Use iteration not recursion](#use-iteration-not-recursion) |
| - [Further Reading](#further-reading-1) |
| - [Allow Correlating Asynchronous Responses to Their Requests](#allow-correlating-asynchronous-responses-to-their-requests) |
|
|
| <!-- markdown-toc end --> |
|
|
|
|
| Below is a set of coding guidelines followed across the rust-libp2p code base. |
|
|
| ## Hierarchical State Machines |
|
|
| If you squint, rust-libp2p is just a big hierarchy of [state |
| machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine) where parents pass |
| events down to their children and children pass events up to their parents. |
| |
|  |
| |
| <details> |
| <summary>Reproduce diagram</summary> |
| |
| ``` |
| @startuml |
| Swarm <|-- RootBehaviour |
| Swarm <|-- ConnectionPool |
| Swarm <|-- Transport |
| RootBehaviour <|-- PingBehaviour |
| RootBehaviour <|-- IdentifyBehaviour |
| RootBehaviour <|-- KademliaBehaviour |
| |
| Swarm : poll() |
| RootBehaviour : poll() |
| ConnectionPool : poll() |
| Transport : poll() |
| PingBehaviour : poll() |
| IdentifyBehaviour : poll() |
| KademliaBehaviour : poll() |
| @enduml |
| ``` |
| </details> |
| |
| Using hierarchical state machines is a deliberate choice throughout the |
| rust-libp2p code base. It makes reasoning about control and data flow simple. It |
| works well with Rust's `Future` model. It allows fine-grain control e.g. on the |
| order child state machines are polled. |
| |
| The above comes with downsides. It feels more verbose. The mix of control flow (`loop`, `return`, |
| `break`, `continue`) in `poll` functions together with the asynchronous and thus decoupled |
| communication via events can be very hard to understand. Both are a form of complexity that we are |
| trading for correctness and performance which aligns with Rust's and rust-libp2p's goals. |
| |
| The architecture pattern of hierarchical state machines should be used wherever possible. |
| |
| ### Conventions for `poll` implementations |
| |
| The `poll` method of a single state machine can be complex especially when that |
| state machine itself `poll`s many child state machines. The patterns shown below |
| have proven useful and should be followed across the code base. |
| |
| ``` rust |
| fn poll(self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Self::Output>{ |
| loop { |
| match self.child_1.poll(cx) { |
| // The child made progress. |
| Poll::Ready(_) => { |
| // Either return an event to the parent: |
| return Poll::Ready(todo!()); |
| // or `continue`, thus polling `child_1` again. `child_1` can potentially make more progress. Try to exhaust |
| // it before moving on to the next child. |
| continue |
| // but NEVER move to the next child if the current child made progress. Given |
| // that the current child might be able to make more progress, it did not yet |
| // register the waker in order for the root task to be woken up later on. Moving |
| // on to the next child might result in the larger `Future` task to stall as it |
| // assumes that there is no more progress to be made. |
| } |
| |
| // The child did not make progress. It has registered the waker for a |
| // later wake up. Proceed with the other children. |
| Poll::Pending(_) => {} |
| } |
| |
| match self.child_2.poll(cx) { |
| Poll::Ready(child_2_event) => { |
| // Events can be dispatched from one child to the other. |
| self.child_1.handle_event(child_2_event); |
| |
| // Either `continue` thus polling `child_1` again, or `return Poll::Ready` with a result to the parent. |
| todo!() |
| } |
| Poll::Pending(_) => {} |
| } |
| |
| match self.child_3.poll(cx) { |
| Poll::Ready(__) => { |
| // Either `continue` thus polling `child_1` again, or `return Poll::Ready` with a result to the parent. |
| todo!() |
| } |
| Poll::Pending(_) => {} |
| } |
| |
| // None of the child state machines can make any more progress. Each registered |
| // the waker in order for the root `Future` task to be woken up again. |
| return Poll::Pending |
| } |
| } |
| ``` |
| |
| ### Prioritize local work over new work from a remote |
|
|
| When handling multiple work streams, prioritize local work items over |
| accepting new work items from a remote. Take the following state machine as an |
| example, reading and writing from a socket, returning result to its parent: |
|
|
| ``` rust |
| struct SomeStateMachine { |
| socket: Socket, |
| events_to_return_to_parent: VecDeque<Event>, |
| messages_to_send_on_socket: VecDeque<Message>, |
| } |
| |
| impl Stream for SomeStateMachine { |
| type Item = Event; |
| |
| fn poll_next(mut self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item>> { |
| loop { |
| // First priority is returning local finished work. |
| if let Some(event) = events_to_return_to_parent.pop_front() { |
| return Poll::Ready(Some(event)); |
| } |
| |
| // Second priority is finishing local work, i.e. sending on the socket. |
| if let Poll::Ready(()) = socket.poll_ready(cx) { |
| todo!("Send messages") |
| continue // Go back to the top. One might be able to send more. |
| } |
| |
| // Last priority is accepting new work, i.e. reading from the socket. |
| if let Poll::Ready(work_item) = socket.poll_next(cx) { |
| todo!("Start work on new item") |
| continue // Go back to the top. There might be more progress to be made. |
| } |
| |
| // At this point in time, there is no more progress to be made. Return |
| // `Pending` and be woken up later. |
| return Poll::Pending; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| This prioritization provides: |
| - Low memory footprint as local queues (here `events_to_return_to_parent`) stay small. |
| - Low latency as accepted local work is not stuck in queues. |
| - DOS defense as a remote does not control the size of the local queue, nor starves local work with its remote work. |
|
|
| ## Bound everything |
|
|
| The concept of unboundedness is an illusion. Use bounded mechanisms to prevent |
| unbounded memory growth and high latencies. |
|
|
| ### Channels |
|
|
| When using channels (e.g. `futures::channel::mpsc` or `std::sync::mpsc`) |
| always use the bounded variant, never use the unbounded variant. When using a |
| bounded channel, a slow consumer eventually slows down a fast producer once |
| the channel bound is reached, ideally granting the slow consumer more system |
| resources e.g. CPU time, keeping queues small and thus latencies low. When |
| using an unbounded channel a fast producer continues being a fast producer, |
| growing the channel buffer indefinitely, increasing latency until the illusion |
| of unboundedness breaks and the system runs out of memory. |
|
|
| One may use an unbounded channel if one enforces backpressure through an |
| out-of-band mechanism, e.g. the consumer granting the producer send-tokens |
| through a side-channel. |
|
|
| ### Local queues |
|
|
| As for channels shared across potentially concurrent actors (e.g. future tasks |
| or OS threads), the same applies to queues owned by a single actor only. E.g. |
| reading events from a socket into a `Vec<Event>` without some mechanism |
| bounding the size of that `Vec<Event>` again can lead to unbounded memory |
| growth and high latencies. |
|
|
| Note that rust-libp2p fails at this guideline, i.e. still has many unbounded |
| local queues. |
|
|
| ### Tasks |
|
|
| Bound the number of |
| [tasks](https://docs.rs/futures/latest/futures/task/index.html) being spawned. |
| As an example, say we spawn one task per incoming request received from a |
| socket. If the number of pending requests is not bounded by some limit, a |
| misbehaving or malicious remote peer can send requests at a higher rate than the |
| local node can respond at. This results in unbounded growth in the number of |
| requests, and thus unbounded growth in the number of tasks and used memory. |
|
|
| Simply put, rust-libp2p spawns one task per connection but limits the overall |
| number of connections, thus adhering to this guideline. |
|
|
| ### Further reading |
|
|
| - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat |
| - https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170814 |
| - https://twitter.com/peterbourgon/status/1212800031406739456 |
|
|
| ## No premature optimizations |
|
|
| Optimizations that add complexity need to be accompanied with a proof of their |
| effectiveness. |
|
|
| This as well applies to increasing buffer or channel sizes, as the downside of |
| such pseudo optimizations is increased memory footprint and latency. |
|
|
| ## Keep things sequential unless proven to be slow |
|
|
| Concurrency adds complexity. Concurrency adds overhead due to synchronization. |
| Thus unless proven to be a bottleneck, don't make things concurrent. As an example |
| the hierarchical `NetworkBehaviour` state machine runs sequentially. It is easy |
| to debug as it runs sequentially. Thus far there has been no proof that |
| shows a speed up when running it concurrently. |
|
|
| ## Use `async/await` for sequential execution only |
|
|
| Using `async/await` for sequential execution makes things significantly simpler. |
| Though unfortunately using `async/await` does not allow accessing methods on the |
| object being `await`ed unless paired with some synchronization mechanism like an |
| `Arc<Mutex<_>>`. |
|
|
| Example: Read and once done write from/to a socket. Use `async/await`. |
|
|
| ``` rust |
| socket.read_exact(&mut read_buf).await; |
| socket.write(&write_buf).await; |
| ``` |
|
|
| Example: Read and concurrently write from/to a socket. Use `poll`. |
|
|
| ``` rust |
| loop { |
| match socket.poll_read(cx, &mut read_buf) { |
| Poll::Ready(_) => { |
| todo!(); |
| continue; |
| } |
| Poll::Pending => {} |
| } |
| match socket.poll_write(cx, &write_buf) { |
| Poll::Ready(_) => { |
| todo!(); |
| continue; |
| } |
| Poll::Pending => {} |
| } |
| |
| return Poll::Pending; |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| When providing `async` methods, make it explicit whether it is safe to cancel |
| the resulting `Future`, i.e. whether it is safe to drop the `Future` returned |
| by the `async` method. |
|
|
| ## Don't communicate by sharing memory; share memory by communicating. |
|
|
| The majority of rust-libp2p's code base follows the above Golang philosophy, |
| e.g. using channels instead of mutexes. This pattern enforces single ownership |
| over data, which works well with Rust's ownership model and makes reasoning |
| about data flow easier. |
|
|
| ### Further Reading |
|
|
| - https://go.dev/blog/codelab-share |
|
|
| ## Use iteration not recursion |
|
|
| Rust does not support tail call optimization, thus using recursion may grow the |
| stack potentially unboundedly. Instead use iteration e.g. via `loop` or `for`. |
|
|
| ### Further Reading |
|
|
| - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call |
| - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65948553/why-is-recursion-not-suggested-in-rust |
| - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59257543/when-is-tail-recursion-guaranteed-in-rust |
| |
| ## Allow Correlating Asynchronous Responses to Their Requests |
| |
| In an asynchronous context, it is important to enable users to determine the correlation between a |
| response and a previous request. For example, if a user requests two new connections to the same |
| peer, they should be able to match each new connection to the corresponding previous connection |
| request without having to guess. |
| |
| When accepting a **command** that eventually results in a response through an event requires that |
| command to contain a unique ID, which is later on contained in the asynchronous response event. One |
| such example is the `Swarm` accepting a `ToSwarm::Dial` from the `NetworkBehaviour`. |
| |
| ``` rust |
| struct Command { |
| id: Id, |
| // ... |
| } |
| |
| struct Response { |
| command_id: Id, |
| // ... |
| } |
| ``` |
| |