-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 297
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: share the commitment key between instances to reduce mem #8154
Conversation
{ | ||
BB_OP_COUNT_TIME_NAME("ProverInstance(Circuit&)"); | ||
circuit.add_gates_to_ensure_all_polys_are_non_zero(); | ||
circuit.finalize_circuit(); | ||
info("finalized gate count: ", circuit.num_gates); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should probably be deleted but I wish it was here so people would see what their gate counts are all the time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are living with clientivc printing data, I'm sure we could live with this for now
@@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ class UltraFlavor { | |||
using Base = ProvingKey_<FF, CommitmentKey>; | |||
using Base::Base; | |||
|
|||
ProvingKey(const size_t circuit_size, const size_t num_public_inputs) | |||
: Base(circuit_size, num_public_inputs) | |||
ProvingKey(const size_t circuit_size, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
had to make these changes to ultra and ultra_keccak because otherwise the call to the constructor was just calling the Base one directly. That meant the polynomials did not get initialized to circuit_size length leading to a segfault.
I briefly tried getting rid of the Base constructors (from the using Base::Base;
line), but other parts of the code complained.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
actually, maybe adding default constructors to ProvingKey of each flavor would fix this and allow us to delete using Base::Base
. I find it weird that we would want to directly call the base class constructor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems ok. Calling the parent class constructor from a child class constructor seems like a really natural pattern to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh, this comment wasn't referring to that pattern. It was referring to the using Base::Base line which brings in the base class constructors to the derived class, which was causing me to hit a segfault rather than a compile error.
Like I was just calling the base class constructor when I thought it would call the derived class constructor (because I forgot to change the derived constructor to take in the commitment_key).
@@ -60,7 +60,13 @@ void AztecIVC::accumulate(ClientCircuit& circuit, const std::shared_ptr<Verifica | |||
circuit.add_recursive_proof(stdlib::recursion::init_default_agg_obj_indices<ClientCircuit>(circuit)); | |||
|
|||
// Construct the prover instance for circuit | |||
auto prover_instance = std::make_shared<ProverInstance>(circuit, trace_structure); | |||
std::shared_ptr<ProverInstance> prover_instance; | |||
if (!initialized) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a little ugly since we now have two blocks of if (!initialized) {} else {}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not great but ok for now. I'd think the eventual solution would be for IVC to initialize and manage its own commitment key then pass it to individual provers
* @details When accumulating only four circuits, we execute all the functionality of a full AztecIVC run. | ||
* | ||
*/ | ||
TEST_F(AztecIVCTests, BasicFour) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could disable for CI given we have n=2 and n=6 already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why even add this? this case is already contained in the failure test below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm using it to measure memory since it's the minimal case that does everything. Yeah I guess the failure test does 4 circuits but it was a failure test I guess.
I can just disable this and leave a comment saying it's for memory benchmarking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh I see, didn't realize it was the memory case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
* @details When accumulating only four circuits, we execute all the functionality of a full AztecIVC run. | ||
* | ||
*/ | ||
TEST_F(AztecIVCTests, BasicFour) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why even add this? this case is already contained in the failure test below
@@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ class UltraFlavor { | |||
using Base = ProvingKey_<FF, CommitmentKey>; | |||
using Base::Base; | |||
|
|||
ProvingKey(const size_t circuit_size, const size_t num_public_inputs) | |||
: Base(circuit_size, num_public_inputs) | |||
ProvingKey(const size_t circuit_size, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems ok. Calling the parent class constructor from a child class constructor seems like a really natural pattern to me
@@ -60,7 +60,13 @@ void AztecIVC::accumulate(ClientCircuit& circuit, const std::shared_ptr<Verifica | |||
circuit.add_recursive_proof(stdlib::recursion::init_default_agg_obj_indices<ClientCircuit>(circuit)); | |||
|
|||
// Construct the prover instance for circuit | |||
auto prover_instance = std::make_shared<ProverInstance>(circuit, trace_structure); | |||
std::shared_ptr<ProverInstance> prover_instance; | |||
if (!initialized) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not great but ok for now. I'd think the eventual solution would be for IVC to initialize and manage its own commitment key then pass it to individual provers
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>aztec-package: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](aztec-package-v0.50.0...aztec-package-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-package:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>barretenberg.js: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](barretenberg.js-v0.50.0...barretenberg.js-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Miscellaneous * **barretenberg.js:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-packages: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](aztec-packages-v0.50.0...aztec-packages-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Features * Free instances and circuits earlier to reduce max memory usage ([#8118](#8118)) ([32a04c1](32a04c1)) * Prepare protocol circuits for batch rollup ([#7727](#7727)) ([a126e22](a126e22)) * Share the commitment key between instances to reduce mem ([#8154](#8154)) ([c3dddf8](c3dddf8)) ### Bug Fixes * Cli-wallet manifest ([#8156](#8156)) ([2ffcda3](2ffcda3)) ### Miscellaneous * Replace relative paths to noir-protocol-circuits ([5372ac4](5372ac4)) * Requiring only 1 sig from user ([#8146](#8146)) ([f0b564b](f0b564b)) </details> <details><summary>barretenberg: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](barretenberg-v0.50.0...barretenberg-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Features * Free instances and circuits earlier to reduce max memory usage ([#8118](#8118)) ([32a04c1](32a04c1)) * Share the commitment key between instances to reduce mem ([#8154](#8154)) ([c3dddf8](c3dddf8)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>aztec-package: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@aztec-package-v0.50.0...aztec-package-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-package:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>barretenberg.js: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@barretenberg.js-v0.50.0...barretenberg.js-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Miscellaneous * **barretenberg.js:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-packages: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@aztec-packages-v0.50.0...aztec-packages-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Features * Free instances and circuits earlier to reduce max memory usage ([#8118](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8118)) ([32a04c1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@32a04c1)) * Prepare protocol circuits for batch rollup ([#7727](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#7727)) ([a126e22](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@a126e22)) * Share the commitment key between instances to reduce mem ([#8154](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8154)) ([c3dddf8](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@c3dddf8)) ### Bug Fixes * Cli-wallet manifest ([#8156](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8156)) ([2ffcda3](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@2ffcda3)) ### Miscellaneous * Replace relative paths to noir-protocol-circuits ([5372ac4](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@5372ac4)) * Requiring only 1 sig from user ([#8146](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8146)) ([f0b564b](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@f0b564b)) </details> <details><summary>barretenberg: 0.50.1</summary> ## [0.50.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@barretenberg-v0.50.0...barretenberg-v0.50.1) (2024-08-23) ### Features * Free instances and circuits earlier to reduce max memory usage ([#8118](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8118)) ([32a04c1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@32a04c1)) * Share the commitment key between instances to reduce mem ([#8154](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#8154)) ([c3dddf8](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@c3dddf8)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).
Continuation of #8118.
In AztecIVC (or ClientIVC), when we have multiple instances, we create a commitment key for each one. However, since each of these instances are the same size, there's no need to create a new one for each one.
When we're constructing an instance beyond the first one, we can reuse the same commitment key from the AztecIVC accumulator, which saves ~123MB of memory for 2^17 circuits, a reduction of 15.6%.
After the change, we cut down max memory by 123MB.