[Merged by Bors] - Handle processing results of non faulty batches #3439
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
divagant-martian
changed the title
…batch when an invalid batch is found
|
Doing some testing with this PR. |
divagant-martian
changed the title
pawanjay176
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2022
| /// The batch processing failed. It carries whether the processing imported any block. | ||
| Failed { | ||
| FaultyFailure { |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 12, 2022
## Issue Addressed Solves #3390 So after checking some logs @pawanjay176 got, we conclude that this happened because we blacklisted a chain after trying it "too much". Now here, in all occurrences it seems that "too much" means we got too many download failures. This happened very slowly, exactly because the batch is allowed to stay alive for very long times after not counting penalties when the ee is offline. The error here then was not that the batch failed because of offline ee errors, but that we blacklisted a chain because of download errors, which we can't pin on the chain but on the peer. This PR fixes that. ## Proposed Changes Adds a missing piece of logic so that if a chain fails for errors that can't be attributed to an objectively bad behavior from the peer, it is not blacklisted. The issue at hand occurred when new peers arrived claiming a head that had wrongfully blacklisted, even if the original peers participating in the chain were not penalized. Another notable change is that we need to consider a batch invalid if it processed correctly but its next non empty batch fails processing. Now since a batch can fail processing in non empty ways, there is no need to mark as invalid previous batches. Improves some logging as well. ## Additional Info We should do this regardless of pausing sync on ee offline/unsynced state. This is because I think it's almost impossible to ensure a processing result will reach in a predictable order with a synced notification from the ee. Doing this handles what I think are inevitable data races when we actually pause sync This also fixes a return that reports which batch failed and caused us some confusion checking the logs
bors
bot
changed the title
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2022
## Issue Addressed #3032 ## Proposed Changes Pause sync when ee is offline. Changes include three main parts: - Online/offline notification system - Pause sync - Resume sync #### Online/offline notification system - The engine state is now guarded behind a new struct `State` that ensures every change is correctly notified. Notifications are only sent if the state changes. The new `State` is behind a `RwLock` (as before) as the synchronization mechanism. - The actual notification channel is a [tokio::sync::watch](https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/sync/watch/index.html) which ensures only the last value is in the receiver channel. This way we don't need to worry about message order etc. - Sync waits for state changes concurrently with normal messages. #### Pause Sync Sync has four components, pausing is done differently in each: - **Block lookups**: Disabled while in this state. We drop current requests and don't search for new blocks. Block lookups are infrequent and I don't think it's worth the extra logic of keeping these and delaying processing. If we later see that this is required, we can add it. - **Parent lookups**: Disabled while in this state. We drop current requests and don't search for new parents. Parent lookups are even less frequent and I don't think it's worth the extra logic of keeping these and delaying processing. If we later see that this is required, we can add it. - **Range**: Chains don't send batches for processing to the beacon processor. This is easily done by guarding the channel to the beacon processor and giving it access only if the ee is responsive. I find this the simplest and most powerful approach since we don't need to deal with new sync states and chain segments that are added while the ee is offline will follow the same logic without needing to synchronize a shared state among those. Another advantage of passive pause vs active pause is that we can still keep track of active advertised chain segments so that on resume we don't need to re-evaluate all our peers. - **Backfill**: Not affected by ee states, we don't pause. #### Resume Sync - **Block lookups**: Enabled again. - **Parent lookups**: Enabled again. - **Range**: Active resume. Since the only real pause range does is not sending batches for processing, resume makes all chains that are holding read-for-processing batches send them. - **Backfill**: Not affected by ee states, no need to resume. ## Additional Info **QUESTION**: Originally I made this to notify and change on synced state, but @pawanjay176 on talks with @paulhauner concluded we only need to check online/offline states. The upcheck function mentions extra checks to have a very up to date sync status to aid the networking stack. However, the only need the networking stack would have is this one. I added a TODO to review if the extra check can be removed Next gen of #3094 Will work best with #3439 Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <[email protected]>
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed Solves sigp#3390 So after checking some logs @pawanjay176 got, we conclude that this happened because we blacklisted a chain after trying it "too much". Now here, in all occurrences it seems that "too much" means we got too many download failures. This happened very slowly, exactly because the batch is allowed to stay alive for very long times after not counting penalties when the ee is offline. The error here then was not that the batch failed because of offline ee errors, but that we blacklisted a chain because of download errors, which we can't pin on the chain but on the peer. This PR fixes that. ## Proposed Changes Adds a missing piece of logic so that if a chain fails for errors that can't be attributed to an objectively bad behavior from the peer, it is not blacklisted. The issue at hand occurred when new peers arrived claiming a head that had wrongfully blacklisted, even if the original peers participating in the chain were not penalized. Another notable change is that we need to consider a batch invalid if it processed correctly but its next non empty batch fails processing. Now since a batch can fail processing in non empty ways, there is no need to mark as invalid previous batches. Improves some logging as well. ## Additional Info We should do this regardless of pausing sync on ee offline/unsynced state. This is because I think it's almost impossible to ensure a processing result will reach in a predictable order with a synced notification from the ee. Doing this handles what I think are inevitable data races when we actually pause sync This also fixes a return that reports which batch failed and caused us some confusion checking the logs
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed NA ## Proposed Changes Bump versions to v3.0.0 ## Additional Info - ~~Blocked on sigp#3439~~ - ~~Blocked on sigp#3459~~ - ~~Blocked on sigp#3463~~ - ~~Blocked on sigp#3462~~ - ~~Requires further testing~~ Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <[email protected]>
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed sigp#3032 ## Proposed Changes Pause sync when ee is offline. Changes include three main parts: - Online/offline notification system - Pause sync - Resume sync #### Online/offline notification system - The engine state is now guarded behind a new struct `State` that ensures every change is correctly notified. Notifications are only sent if the state changes. The new `State` is behind a `RwLock` (as before) as the synchronization mechanism. - The actual notification channel is a [tokio::sync::watch](https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/sync/watch/index.html) which ensures only the last value is in the receiver channel. This way we don't need to worry about message order etc. - Sync waits for state changes concurrently with normal messages. #### Pause Sync Sync has four components, pausing is done differently in each: - **Block lookups**: Disabled while in this state. We drop current requests and don't search for new blocks. Block lookups are infrequent and I don't think it's worth the extra logic of keeping these and delaying processing. If we later see that this is required, we can add it. - **Parent lookups**: Disabled while in this state. We drop current requests and don't search for new parents. Parent lookups are even less frequent and I don't think it's worth the extra logic of keeping these and delaying processing. If we later see that this is required, we can add it. - **Range**: Chains don't send batches for processing to the beacon processor. This is easily done by guarding the channel to the beacon processor and giving it access only if the ee is responsive. I find this the simplest and most powerful approach since we don't need to deal with new sync states and chain segments that are added while the ee is offline will follow the same logic without needing to synchronize a shared state among those. Another advantage of passive pause vs active pause is that we can still keep track of active advertised chain segments so that on resume we don't need to re-evaluate all our peers. - **Backfill**: Not affected by ee states, we don't pause. #### Resume Sync - **Block lookups**: Enabled again. - **Parent lookups**: Enabled again. - **Range**: Active resume. Since the only real pause range does is not sending batches for processing, resume makes all chains that are holding read-for-processing batches send them. - **Backfill**: Not affected by ee states, no need to resume. ## Additional Info **QUESTION**: Originally I made this to notify and change on synced state, but @pawanjay176 on talks with @paulhauner concluded we only need to check online/offline states. The upcheck function mentions extra checks to have a very up to date sync status to aid the networking stack. However, the only need the networking stack would have is this one. I added a TODO to review if the extra check can be removed Next gen of sigp#3094 Will work best with sigp#3439 Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <[email protected]>
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.
Issue Addressed
Solves #3390
So after checking some logs @pawanjay176 got, we conclude that this happened because we blacklisted a chain after trying it "too much". Now here, in all occurrences it seems that "too much" means we got too many download failures. This happened very slowly, exactly because the batch is allowed to stay alive for very long times after not counting penalties when the ee is offline. The error here then was not that the batch failed because of offline ee errors, but that we blacklisted a chain because of download errors, which we can't pin on the chain but on the peer. This PR fixes that.
Proposed Changes
Adds a missing piece of logic so that if a chain fails for errors that can't be attributed to an objectively bad behavior from the peer, it is not blacklisted. The issue at hand occurred when new peers arrived claiming a head that had wrongfully blacklisted, even if the original peers participating in the chain were not penalized.
Another notable change is that we need to consider a batch invalid if it processed correctly but its next non empty batch fails processing. Now since a batch can fail processing in non empty ways, there is no need to mark as invalid previous batches.
Improves some logging as well.
Additional Info
We should do this regardless of pausing sync on ee offline/unsynced state. This is because I think it's almost impossible to ensure a processing result will reach in a predictable order with a synced notification from the ee. Doing this handles what I think are inevitable data races when we actually pause sync
This also fixes a return that reports which batch failed and caused us some confusion checking the logs