feat: sharding of global challenge phase commitment and opcode proving #695
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
lispc
changed the title
This was
linked to
issues
Dec 5, 2024
icemelon
reviewed
Dec 10, 2024
| @@ -90,33 +92,59 @@ impl<E: ExtensionField, PCS: PolynomialCommitmentScheme<E>> ZKVMProver<E, PCS> { | |||
| } | |||
| exit_span!(span); | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: is it better to set different size of different opcode? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think so. Why choosing 1048576 here?
| @@ -90,33 +92,59 @@ impl<E: ExtensionField, PCS: PolynomialCommitmentScheme<E>> ZKVMProver<E, PCS> { | |||
| } | |||
| exit_span!(span); | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: is it better to set different size of different opcode? | |||
| let shard_size = 1048576; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be easier to read in hex. (Because it's not just a random number.)
| // TODO: (1) is it ok to store mle? (2) replace tuple with struct? | ||
| #[allow(clippy::type_complexity)] | ||
| let mut wits_and_commitments: BTreeMap< | ||
| String, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the meaning of the key here? A type synonym might be useful here?
| let mut commitments = BTreeMap::new(); | ||
| let mut wits = BTreeMap::new(); | ||
| // TODO: (1) is it ok to store mle? (2) replace tuple with struct? | ||
| #[allow(clippy::type_complexity)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps use some type synonym or so?
| @@ -61,10 +61,11 @@ impl<E: ExtensionField, PCS: PolynomialCommitmentScheme<E>> ZKVMVerifier<E, PCS> | |||
| does_halt: bool, | |||
| ) -> Result<bool, ZKVMError> { | |||
| // require ecall/halt proof to exist, depending whether we expect a halt. | |||
| // TODO: make it less adhoc | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Especially once we support more ecalls. Or perhaps we should introduce a specific 'halt-successfully' introduction.
| @@ -107,6 +110,42 @@ impl<T: Sized + Sync + Clone + Send + Copy> RowMajorMatrix<T> { | |||
| }) | |||
| .collect() | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: should we consume or clone `self`? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's natural to consume self, then do so. The caller can clone.
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.
The sharding in first layer circuit is quite simple. While sharding+recursion-circuit will be where most magic happens.
Pending designs:
OpcodeProofstruct as a vector of shard proofs?TODOsinside the PR.Other notes:
into_mleinput is 8xSHARD_SIZE. It is as expected related to some FAN_IN mle parameter.Perf (MBP M3)