-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 796
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
[Merged by Bors] - Fix proposer cache priming upon state advance #2252
Closed
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
michaelsproul
added
bug
Something isn't working
ready-for-review
The code is ready for review
A0
labels
Mar 10, 2021
paulhauner
approved these changes
Mar 10, 2021
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.
Nice one! I had also found this in #2243 but I think merging this is a good idea.
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2021
## Proposed Changes While investigating an incorrect head + target vote for the epoch boundary block 708544, I noticed that the state advance failed to prime the proposer cache, as per these logs: ``` Mar 09 21:42:47.448 DEBG Subscribing to subnet target_slot: 708544, subnet: Y, service: attestation_service Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Advanced head state one slot current_slot: 708543, state_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Completed state advance initial_slot: 708543, advanced_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:14.787 DEBG Proposer shuffling cache miss block_slot: 708544, block_root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, parent_slot: 708543, parent_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 DEBG Successfully processed gossip block root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, slot: 708544, graffiti: , service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 INFO New block received hash: 0x9b14…f9fe, slot: 708544 Mar 09 21:49:14.984 DEBG Head beacon block slot: 708544, root: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, justified_epoch: 22141, justified_root: 0x59db…e451, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:15.055 INFO Unaggregated attestation validator: XXXXX, src: api, slot: 708544, epoch: 22142, delay_ms: 53, index: Y, head: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: val_mon Mar 09 21:49:17.001 DEBG Slot timer sync_state: Synced, current_slot: 708544, head_slot: 708544, head_block: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, peers: 55, service: slot_notifier ``` The reason for this is that the condition was backwards, so that whole block of code was unreachable. Looking at the attestations for the block included in the block after, we can see that lots of validators missed it. Some of them may be Lighthouse v1.1.1-v1.2.0-rc.0, but it's probable that they would have missed even with the proposer cache primed, given how late the block 708544 arrived (the cache miss occurred 3.787s after the slot start): https://beaconcha.in/block/708545#attestations
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded: |
bors
bot
changed the title
Fix proposer cache priming upon state advance
[Merged by Bors] - Fix proposer cache priming upon state advance
Mar 10, 2021
michaelsproul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2021
## Proposed Changes While investigating an incorrect head + target vote for the epoch boundary block 708544, I noticed that the state advance failed to prime the proposer cache, as per these logs: ``` Mar 09 21:42:47.448 DEBG Subscribing to subnet target_slot: 708544, subnet: Y, service: attestation_service Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Advanced head state one slot current_slot: 708543, state_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:08.063 DEBG Completed state advance initial_slot: 708543, advanced_slot: 708544, head_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: state_advance Mar 09 21:49:14.787 DEBG Proposer shuffling cache miss block_slot: 708544, block_root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, parent_slot: 708543, parent_root: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 DEBG Successfully processed gossip block root: 0x9b14bf68667ab1d9c35e6fd2c95ff5d609aa9e8cf08e0071988ae4aa00b9f9fe, slot: 708544, graffiti: , service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:14.800 INFO New block received hash: 0x9b14…f9fe, slot: 708544 Mar 09 21:49:14.984 DEBG Head beacon block slot: 708544, root: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, justified_epoch: 22141, justified_root: 0x59db…e451, service: beacon Mar 09 21:49:15.055 INFO Unaggregated attestation validator: XXXXX, src: api, slot: 708544, epoch: 22142, delay_ms: 53, index: Y, head: 0xaf5e69de09f384ee3b4fb501458b7000c53bb6758a48817894ec3d2b030e3e6f, service: val_mon Mar 09 21:49:17.001 DEBG Slot timer sync_state: Synced, current_slot: 708544, head_slot: 708544, head_block: 0x9b14…f9fe, finalized_epoch: 22140, finalized_root: 0x28ec…29a7, peers: 55, service: slot_notifier ``` The reason for this is that the condition was backwards, so that whole block of code was unreachable. Looking at the attestations for the block included in the block after, we can see that lots of validators missed it. Some of them may be Lighthouse v1.1.1-v1.2.0-rc.0, but it's probable that they would have missed even with the proposer cache primed, given how late the block 708544 arrived (the cache miss occurred 3.787s after the slot start): https://beaconcha.in/block/708545#attestations
michaelsproul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2021
This reverts commit 8b799e3.
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.
Proposed Changes
While investigating an incorrect head + target vote for the epoch boundary block 708544, I noticed that the state advance failed to prime the proposer cache, as per these logs:
The reason for this is that the condition was backwards, so that whole block of code was unreachable.
Looking at the attestations for the block included in the block after, we can see that lots of validators missed it. Some of them may be Lighthouse v1.1.1-v1.2.0-rc.0, but it's probable that they would have missed even with the proposer cache primed, given how late the block 708544 arrived (the cache miss occurred 3.787s after the slot start): https://beaconcha.in/block/708545#attestations