Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) #10286

TheBlueMatt · 2017-04-27T00:59:32Z

Based on #10179, this effectively reverts #9583, regaining most of the original speedups of #7946.

This concludes the work of #9725, #10178, and #10179.

See individual commit messages for more information.

ryanofsky

utACK 6fb571977d9cc41793a594688e5071dd5bbd864d.

Code changes mostly seem great, though as you can tell from my comments I have a somewhat hazy understanding of the semantics and assumptions being made. A little more documentation would make everything clear, I think.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:01:49Z

src/txmempool.h

@@ -511,6 +511,9 @@ class CTxMemPool
    // to track size/count of descendant transactions.  First version of
    // addUnchecked can be used to have it call CalculateMemPoolAncestors(), and
    // then invoke the second version.
+    // Note that addUnchecked is ONLY called from ATMP during normal operation,
+    // and any other callers may break wallet's in-mempool tracking (due to
+    // lack of CValidationInterface::TransactionAddedToMempool callbacks).


In commit "Add a CValidationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool"

What does this imply? Just that if there are any new calls to addUnchecked, the caller also needs to signal TransactionAddedToMempool not to break the wallet? Would say this in the comment explicitly if this is the case.

Updated the comment to mention that addUnchecked is only called from ATMP outside of tests period. I think the implication is that we need to fix the strong-coupling here.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:05:07Z

src/txmempool.h

@@ -511,6 +511,9 @@ class CTxMemPool
    // to track size/count of descendant transactions.  First version of
    // addUnchecked can be used to have it call CalculateMemPoolAncestors(), and
    // then invoke the second version.
+    // Note that addUnchecked is ONLY called from ATMP during normal operation,


In commit "Add a CValidationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool"

Unclear to me what a normal operation is. Comment might be clearer mentioning a not normal counterexample.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:16:09Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+                if (this->lastBlockProcessed == chainActive.Tip()) {
+                    return true;
+                }
+                // If the user called invalidatechain some things might block


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

Does "some things might block forever" just mean this wait might block forever? If so, maybe be more concrete and say something like "lastBlockProcessed will not be rewound back to chainActive.Tip()." Otherwise it would be good to clarify what some things is referring to.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:17:11Z

src/wallet/wallet.h

+     * Blocks until the wallet state is up-to-date to /at least/ the current
+     * chain at the time this function is entered
+     * Obviously holding cs_main/cs_wallet when going into this call may cause
+	 * deadlock


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

Stray tab here

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:30:07Z

src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp

@@ -2648,6 +2712,10 @@ UniValue fundrawtransaction(const JSONRPCRequest& request)

    RPCTypeCheck(request.params, boost::assign::list_of(UniValue::VSTR));

+    // Make sure the results are valid at least up to the most recent block


In commit "Add calls to CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() in RPCs"

Can you give an example of specific bug that could occur without these BlockUntilSynced calls and is prevented by adding them? I looked at some of the old issues (#9584, #9148, etc), but they're confusing and I don't know how much of the information is up to date.

It would be great if BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain had a comment that made it clearer when it does and doesn't need to be called, and what consistency issues it is and isn't supposed to solve.

Maybe there should also be a bullet point in the new RPC interface guidelines about what kind of consistency wallet RPCs are expected to have.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-02T21:52:37Z

test/functional/zmq_test.py

+        if topic == b"hashblock":
+            blkhash = bytes_to_hex_str(body)
+        else:
+            assert_equal(topic, b"hashtx")

        msg = self.zmqSubSocket.recv_multipart()
        topic = msg[0]


In commit "Fix zmq tests now that txn/blocks are unordered"

Maybe assert msg[0] != topic above this line to confirm actually receive distinct hashtx and hashblock messages (not two hashblocks).

TheBlueMatt · 2017-05-03T19:20:32Z

Rebased and fixed @ryanofsky's mostly-comment nits :).

mchrostowski

Overall appears to be on a good track. It looks to me like the global lock (cs_main) is causing some serious confusion/issues and there is some general mistake in the pattern of locks or their encapsulation that makes this all difficult.

I reviewed everything pretty closely aside from the ZMQ test changes, that went over my head.

Please don't overlook the outdated validationinterface.cpp comments, those took some time to put together.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T19:30:28Z

src/qt/test/rpcnestedtests.cpp

@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include "rpc/server.h"


These changes do not appear to be related to the rest. Am I missing something or should this be in its own PR?
I believe @sipa made a similar comment on #10179

Without them test_bitcoin-qt segfaults.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T19:33:26Z

src/validationinterface.cpp

 static CMainSignals g_signals;

+CMainSignals::CMainSignals() {


This would be safer/faster/cleaner with : internals(new CMainSignalsInstance()) {} instead of the body.

Initializer lists guarantee proper cross-thread visibility, otherwise you might init twice and have sharing issues.

Does that compile? CMainSignalsInstance() is not defined at that time, only declared.

Since it is only a declaration I believe it should have been fine. I see this code isn't present in the final commit so I suppose it doesn't matter either way.

Ahh, yes, since the rebase on the latest version of #10179 this code no longer exists, as the scheduler has to be passed into the creation of the internals object.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:03:44Z

src/scheduler.h

@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ class CScheduler
    // Call func at/after time t
    void schedule(Function f, boost::chrono::system_clock::time_point t);


You can accomplish this entire commit by changing this line to
void schedule(Function f, boost::chrono::system_clock::time_point t = boost::chrono::system_clock::now());

Took this on #10179, will be here when I next rebase.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:13:05Z

src/validationinterface.cpp

+    void MaybeScheduleProcessQueue() {
+        {
+            LOCK(cs_callbacksPending);
+            // Try to avoid scheduling too many copies here, but if we


This comment and issue can be avoided entirely if you move line 56 up to 46.
After that lines 54 and 55 (which will be 55 and 56) can be removed.

This comment and issue can be avoided entirely if you move line 56 up to 46.
After that lines 54 and 55 (which will be 55 and 56) can be removed.

I think this is right (line numbers apply to commit 8daf2439796dfdee41c1a32787e0ec9726daf6be). It also seems like you could eliminate the fCallbacksRunning variable if you change ProcessQueue to call pop_front after running the callback and condition the AddToProcessQueue schedule() call on the queue being previously empty.

Looks like you commented on an outdated version and github wont show me full context, so I have no idea what those line numbers refer to :/

@ryanofsky I believe the point is to avoid duplicate calls to the scheduler since it may be multi-threaded. So a call to AddToProcessQueue should not schedule() anything if we're already scheduled; it should only schedule() if our previously scheduled function has completed execution (at least beyond the point of it calling schedule() again). Can't see implementing that without knowing if fCallbacksRunning is true.

Still, the code does not guarantee single threaded execution in its current form due to the fCallbacksRunning state being set AFTER the call to schedule(). Being that all the locks are placed appropriately we might as well make this guarantee or else it seems like a bug because the SingleThreadedClient won't be.

I'll see if I can't get a test showing this behavior.

@ryanofsky I believe the point is to avoid duplicate calls to the scheduler since it may be multi-threaded.

I know, this is why the second half of my suggestion was "condition the AddToProcessQueue schedule() call on the queue being previously empty." Anyway, I don't think Matt's particularly interested in these simplifications, and it's easier to communicate these changes as patches rather than english descriptions, so I'd rather just leave any simplifications to followup PRs.

Still, the code does not guarantee single threaded execution in its current form due to the fCallbacksRunning state being set AFTER the call to schedule()

The reason it works in its current form is because of the if (fCallbacksRunning) return; line at the top of ProcessQueue()

Again, I don't think the code in it's current form is the simplest it could be, but it seems safe and easy to clean up later in a followup PR. Also this whole discussion really should be moved to #10179. #10286 is only building on the changes in #10179.

@ryanofsky I see that now, the extra check does prevent the execution.

Being that this is new code I wouldn't call it a simplification. Here's a patch of the proposed change, less logic with the same function:
scheduler.patch.txt

which reads better if you rename fCallbacksRunning to fCallbacksScheduled
and this patch:
scheduler.patch2.txt
which can be argued reduces code reuse but I think the readability is improved.

@TheBlueMatt If you're open to these changes in a PR to your branch I can do that, I assume they'll be squashed so either way works.

@mchrostowski hmm, really, I find that it decreases readability (though that may be NIH). It looks harder to reason about whether some callbacks might accidentally get missed to me.

(Other random note, we dont use tabs in our codebase, which your patch added).

@TheBlueMatt Well, in that case I feel like either patch gets funky, especially since the use of fCallbacksRunning becomes inconsistent if you apply the first patch without the second (unless some alternative name for fCallbacksRunning works).

The extra safety check and inconsistency of scheduling bothers me but I wouldn't expect it to actually cause issues so I have no grounds for objection.

I think my inquiry stemmed from it not being immediately apparent that ProcessQueue() only runs once and the extra check is just an extra check. Perhaps the "not a big deal" part of the comment could be "because ProcessQueue() already checks" for clarity, I would not have looked so deeply into the code except that I thought "not a big deal" meant "sometimes interweaving calls is okay."

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:26:32Z

src/validationinterface.cpp

+            callbacksPending.pop_front();
+        }
+
+        // RAII the setting of fCallbacksRunning and calling MaybeScheduleProcessQueue


RAII is great and all but exists for the acquisition of resources. Why not try{} catch{}?
try { callback(); } catch(...) { { LOCK(cs_callbacksPending); fCallbacksRunning = false; } MaybeScheduleProcessQueue(); }

Why not try{} catch{}?

My guess about this was that it allows the processqueue to take advantage of whatever error handling or reporting cscheduler provides, and to not have to repeat the finalization logic both inside and after the catch clause. Either approach seems fine to me, though.

@laanwj previously requested that any exceptions be thrown all the way up, so this was an easier way to do that. That request seemed reasonable.

Understood, makes perfect sense. Didn't occur to me we'd have to duplicate the logic, spoiled by finally.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:40:07Z

src/scheduler.h

+ * to be executed on the same thread, but no two jobs will be executed
+ * at the same time.
+ */
+class CSingleThreadedSchedulerClient {


This is no longer a scheduler. It has one public method, void AddToProcessQueue(std::function<void (void)> func);, which does not take any 'schedule' information.

This class is neat, more of a SingleThreadedExecutor that happens to use a scheduler to execute. Really its treating the scheduler as a thread pool.

I'm all for keeping this if it's not named 'scheduler' and if a thread pool abstraction can be extracted from CScheduler then both this class and CScheduler can use that pool for execution. Also to consider, is this used anywhere else yet or is it expected to be used?

Its unlikely to be used elsewhere, but as it is more intimate with the CScheduler than the validation interface, it was abstracted out and put here. We should probably tweak up how it all works in a later PR (as we move off of the big boost threadGroup in init), but for now I'll leave it.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:46:55Z

src/wallet/wallet.h

+    /**
+     * Blocks until the wallet state is up-to-date to /at least/ the current
+     * chain at the time this function is entered
+     * Obviously holding cs_main/cs_wallet when going into this call may cause


Odd comment, "Obviously... may..." is concerning enough that we should have a comment explaining how to avoid a deadlock rather than this vagueness or perhaps removing the statement altogether?

Any suggestions? The statement indicates that "holding cs_main/cs_wallet may cause deadlock", this is true, deadlock is not guaranteed, but may appear, thus you should obviously never call with cs_main or cs_wallet held.

I'd just drop "Obviously" now that I'm more familiar with the method.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T20:55:13Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

@@ -1147,6 +1153,50 @@ void CWallet::BlockDisconnected(const std::shared_ptr<const CBlock>& pblock) {



+void CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() {


This method is concerning. It may be that it is being used in a safe manner but the method itself is quite dangerous. Preliminary observation suggests this can be called from both the command line RPC and JSON RPC at the same time but I don't know how true this is.

Calling it from two different threads appears to be not okay, so it is "Not thread safe" and should likely be labeled as such (though I don't see this as a standard in the project codebase so maybe that's going a bit far).

I'm not sure how it is not thread safe? It blocks the current thread, not any other work.

I thought unsafe due to the "AssertLockNotHeld" that I misunderstood. My above comment is totally wrong and can be disregarded.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T21:11:39Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+        initialChainTip = chainActive.Tip();
+    }
+    AssertLockNotHeld(cs_main);
+    AssertLockNotHeld(cs_wallet);


If these assertions need to be held for this method to execute correctly then the method cannot be thread safe as itself being called twice, in two threads, is enough to cause a failure.

The AssertLockNotHeld call only fails if the current thread holds the lock, not any thread.

boost::thread_specific_ptr<LockStack> lockstack;
Didn't see that, makes perfect sense then.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-03T21:24:18Z

src/validationinterface.cpp

@@ -104,7 +104,9 @@ void UnregisterAllValidationInterfaces() {

 void CMainSignals::MempoolEntryRemoved(CTransactionRef ptx, MemPoolRemovalReason reason) {
    if (reason != MemPoolRemovalReason::BLOCK && reason != MemPoolRemovalReason::CONFLICT) {
-        internals->TransactionRemovedFromMempool(ptx);
+        internals->schedulerClient.AddToProcessQueue([ptx, this] {


This is a fine solution. All these lock inversion concerns make me wonder if there isn't a more serious issue regarding lack of proper encapsulation with some of these locks. I'm sure global locks (cs_main) don't help either, can't imagine actually needing a global lock.

This is being run in a background thread, so there are no possible lock inversions? We've had great success with DEBUG_LOCKORDER and havent had any serious deadlock issues afair since the 0.3.X era.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-04T20:13:45Z

So far looks good to me, I'm going to poke around wallet<->blockchain interaction so I can better understand the wallet.cpp changes you made before I comment further.

That said I feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with the interaction between CWallet and the blockchain (I don't even know where that code lives yet). This feels like a solution to current issues but I would hope a refactor prevents needing such frequently occurring checks and thread specific execution.

That said, it would be interesting if a single "blockchain operations" thread is needed to get the code working in a reasonable manner. GUI systems tend to need such threads because of the nature of problem which is events coming from both ends of the system (rendering thread vs input thread) which would have to, in any logical design, invert lock ordering or else excessively block.

ryanofsky

utACK 943217460bc527c4003868415c264e4a77a6e55a.

Changes since previous ACK were rebasing, adding developer notes, tweaking some comments, adding a check to the zmq test

ryanofsky · 2017-05-04T20:05:21Z

doc/developer-notes.md

+
+- Wallet RPCs call BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain to maintain consistency with
+  `getblockchaininfo`'s state immediately prior to the call's execution. Wallet
+  RPCs who's behavior does *not* depend on the current chainstate may omit this


In commit "Add a dev notes document describing the new wallet RPC blocking"

s/who's/whose

ryanofsky · 2017-05-04T20:06:56Z

doc/developer-notes.md

+  - *Rationale*: In previous versions of Bitcoin Core, the wallet was always
+    in-sync with the chainstate (by virtue of them all being updated in the
+    same cs_main lock). In order to maintain the behavior that wallet RPCs
+    return restults as of at least the highest best-known-block an RPC


In commit "Add a dev notes document describing the new wallet RPC blocking"

s/restults/results, s/best-known-block/best-known block,/

TheBlueMatt · 2017-05-04T20:25:00Z

@mchrostowski thanks for the review! Generally, wallet and blockchain (essentially validation.cpp's stuff) have historically been pretty tightly coupled (updated all under the same cs_main lock). This PR is a step, however small, towards decoupling that a bit. Because the wallet still relies on "is it in our mempool?" as a proxy for "is this possibly going to get confirmed/is it spendable with the result making it into my mempool", the chainstate and mempool still need to be updated in-sync and the wallet notified of the updates in a single notification, which come in in the order they happened. Still, this is much better than the wallet actually querying the mempool/validation logic directly instead of tracking the stuff it cares about out of them.

TheBlueMatt · 2017-05-04T20:55:07Z

Rebased on latest #10179, current master, and fixed @ryanofsky's english corrections.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-05T21:00:01Z

utACK 2c306d7876fb57ff26d217f97415a79942094002. Changes since previous were some documentation tweaks and new block calls in "Add calls to CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()", along with the rebase.

mchrostowski · 2017-05-13T22:12:00Z

@TheBlueMatt The stated purpose of this PR is to reduce locking on cs_main so as to reducing code coupling. I see one change in this PR that actually deletes a LOCK(cs_main) which is in CWallet::InMempool(). This looks like a step in the right direction.

That said, the remaining changes seem to be all about getting the signals into a background thread. What does this gain us for decoupling?

If the purpose is to not hold cs_main from whatever call sites hit GetMainSignals() then I don't see a benefit in using new threads when we can release the lock before making the call. That is, running in another thread is not decoupling synchronization or interface dependencies. The goal of "move wallet updates out of cs_main into a background thread" seems unrelated to decoupling because "using a background thread" and "not holding cs_main" are not dependent on each other, at least in the cases I observed.

Of particular concern is the re-ordering of calls, which you're avoiding with the single threaded scheduler, but if this isn't required for decoupling then it is just added complexity and overhead.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-30T16:14:18Z

This needs rebase due to a minor conflict in listunspent.

ryanofsky · 2017-05-31T20:00:21Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+                // If the user called invalidateblock our wait here might block
+                // forever, so we check if we're ahead of the tip (a state
+                // which should otherwise never be exposed outside of validation)
+                return this->lastBlockProcessed->nChainWork > chainActive.Tip()->nChainWork;


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

I don't understand why we would wait forever without this check. Does InvalidateBlock not trigger notifications that would lead to lastBlockProcessed being updated? And if it doesn't, shouldn't this just be fixed so the right notifications are sent?

ryanofsky · 2017-05-31T20:05:43Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+            // This should be exceedingly rare in regular usage, so potentially
+            // eating 100ms to retry this lock should be fine (not TRY_LOCKing
+            // here would be a lock inversion against lastBlockProcessedMutex)
+            TRY_LOCK(cs_main, mainLocked);


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

Maybe consider dropping the try-lock and replacing it with lastBlockProcessedMutex.unlock(); LOCK(cs_main); lastBlockProcessedMutex.lock();. Maybe this would be a little slower in the average case where this code runs (which is rare to begin with), but it would avoid the 100ms worst case, and make the code simpler because you could also replace the while loop and timeout with a plain cv.wait(lock, pred) call.

TheBlueMatt · 2017-06-08T15:32:08Z

Rebased and rewrote CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain(). Instead of the complicated fallback logic, it now just tests if it is caught up, and if it is not, it puts a callback into the CValidationInterface queue and waits for it to trigger. I wanted to avoid having this function previously, but I ended up needing it for a different branch which moves more CValidationInterface callbacks to the background and the logic is so simple, that I went ahead with it.

ryanofsky

utACK 91aad9fa3b33ae387145e4b84a14c5f61cbd2494. Changes since last review were rebase, style guide fixes, BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain rewrite.

ryanofsky · 2017-06-08T20:40:38Z

src/validationinterface.cpp

@@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ void UnregisterAllValidationInterfaces() {
    g_signals.m_internals->NewPoWValidBlock.disconnect_all_slots();
 }

+void CallFunctionInValidationInterfaceQueue(std::function<void ()> func) {
+    g_signals.m_internals->m_schedulerClient.AddToProcessQueue(func);


In commit "Add CallFunctionInQueue to wait on validation interface queue drain"

Would std::move(func)

ryanofsky · 2017-06-08T20:48:58Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+        LOCK(cs_main);
+        const CBlockIndex* initialChainTip = chainActive.Tip();
+
+        if (m_last_block_processed == initialChainTip) {


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

Maybe drop this check. Seems to be a special case of the check below which isn't actually more expensive.

ryanofsky · 2017-06-08T21:03:17Z

src/wallet/wallet.cpp

+        }
+    }
+
+    std::condition_variable callbacks_done_cv;


In commit "Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain()"

I think all the mutex/cv/lambda/looping stuff below could be replaced by:

std::promise<void> promise; CallFunctionInValidationInterfaceQueue([&promise]() { promise.set_value(); }); promise.get_future().wait();

ryanofsky

utACK ae0c83326bdae2b61c1bcffd122f78468aa2aefb. Same as previous except the last 3 review suggestions are now incorporated. There is a minor conflict now with master, but since this depends on #10179 anyway, there's probably no hurry to rebase.

ryanofsky · 2017-06-19T19:53:28Z

src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp

+            // where a user might call sendrawtransaction with a transaction
+            // to/from their wallet, immediately call some wallet RPC, and get
+            // a stale result because callbacks have not yet been processed.
+            pwalletMain->TransactionAddedToMempool(tx);


In commit "Fix wallet RPC race by informing wallet of tx in sendrawtransaction"

Seems like this will result in the wallet getting two TransactionAddedToMempool notifications, which is fine but might be worth noting in the comment.

Also, not asking for this change, but would another way to do this without referencing the wallet here be to release cs_main and then wait for the other notification to be processed? (Maybe using CallFunctionInValidationInterfaceQueue like in BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain?)

Yes, much better to CallFunctionInValidatioInterface. Done.

…tion d31e5c1 Fix shutdown in case of errors during initialization (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: PR bitcoin#10286 introduced a few steps which are not robust to early shutdown in initialization. Stumbled upon this with bitcoin#11781, not sure if there are other scenarios that can trigger it, but it's good to harden against this in any case. E.g. ``` $ src/bitcoind -debuglogfile=/dfdf Error: Could not open debug log file /dfdf Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. UnregisterValidationInterface (pwalletIn=0x0) at /.../bitcoin/src/validationinterface.cpp:82 82 g_signals.m_internals->BlockChecked.disconnect(boost::bind(&CValidationInterface::BlockChecked, pwalletIn, _1, _2)); (gdb) bt #0 UnregisterValidationInterface (pwalletIn=0x0) at /.../bitcoin/src/validationinterface.cpp:82 #1 0x00005555555a11fc in Shutdown () at /.../bitcoin/src/init.cpp:196 #2 0x00005555555961cc in AppInit (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at /.../bitcoin/src/bitcoind.cpp:183 #3 0x0000555555596249 in main (argc=0, argv=0x555555ecf200) at /.../bitcoin/src/bitcoind.cpp:19 ``` Tree-SHA512: 7dd9570a9803514a17781bfadf1edde47e96df4e852cce2f423cab422e005fb94d44e777af1a6ea5167b04a4d889e848ae7a61a7e0e94232247ddea32ee70fc8

… (without cs_main) 89f0312 Remove redundant pwallet nullptr check (Matt Corallo) c4784b5 Add a dev notes document describing the new wallet RPC blocking (Matt Corallo) 3ea8b75 Give ZMQ consistent order with UpdatedBlockTip on scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) cb06edf Fix wallet RPC race by waiting for callbacks in sendrawtransaction (Matt Corallo) e545ded Also call other wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) 17220d6 Use callbacks to cache whether wallet transactions are in mempool (Matt Corallo) 5d67a78 Add calls to CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() in RPCs (Matt Corallo) 5ee3172 Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() (Matt Corallo) 0b2f42d Add CallFunctionInQueue to wait on validation interface queue drain (Matt Corallo) 2b4b345 Add ability to assert a lock is not held in DEBUG_LOCKORDER (Matt Corallo) 0343676 Call TransactionRemovedFromMempool in the CScheduler thread (Matt Corallo) a7d3936 Add a CValidationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: Based on bitcoin#10179, this effectively reverts bitcoin#9583, regaining most of the original speedups of bitcoin#7946. This concludes the work of bitcoin#9725, bitcoin#10178, and bitcoin#10179. See individual commit messages for more information. Tree-SHA512: eead4809b0a75d1fb33b0765174ff52c972e45040635e38cf3686cef310859c1e6b3c00e7186cbd17374c6ae547bfbd6c1718fe36f26c76ba8a8b052d6ed7bc9

PR bitcoin#10286 introduced a few steps which are not robust to early shutdown in initialization. Stumbled upon this with bitcoin#11781, not sure if there are other scenarios that can trigger it, but it's harden against this in any case.

…ead (without cs_main) 3d11027 wallet:CreateCoinStake, solving IsSpent() missing cs_main lock. (furszy) 046386b IsNoteSaplingChange: Add missing cs_wallet lock. (furszy) ded2e8e feature_dbcrash.py using blockmaxsize instead of blockmaxweight that we currently don't support. (furszy) 00cc6ec dumpwallet: Add missing BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain (furszy) bfd9a15 test: sapling_fillblock.py sync mempool every 200 transactions instead of only at the end. (furszy) 53497f0 Validation: DisconnectTip doesn't need to force a flush to disk. (furszy) f8cd371 [Miner] Sync wallet state before try to solve proof of stake. (furszy) 3ace13b qa: Fix some tests to work on native windows (furszy) 65cf7e1 don't attempt mempool entry for wallet transactions on startup if already in mempool (instagibbs) 756d0fa Handle rename failure in DumpMempool(...) by using RenameOver(...) return value (practicalswift) 1423dba [bugfix] save feeDelta instead of priorityDelta in DumpMempool (Alex Morcos) d97ace9 [Test] notes_double_spend: sync wallet before check balances. (furszy) 1ed753f Fix wallet_tests.cpp, missing fInMempool flag set. (furszy) 815667d unit test framework: missing scheduler service loop start added. (furszy) de3c7ae fix wallet_upgrade.py test, wasn't counting the coinbase script. (furszy) e6770c8 fixing invalid wallet_dump.py, generated PoW blocks use a P2PKH coinbase script that now is properly marked as used inside the wallet. (furszy) 4ed7024 fix invalid numbers in wallet_labels.py (furszy) b9249c5 Miner: generate RPC, fix coinbase script key not marked as used (furszy) 296c956 wallet: guard null m_last_block_processed (furszy) 0dfebf4 sapling_rpc_wallet_tests: remove unneeded cs_main and cs_wallet locks. (furszy) c3a281c fix mempool_persist.py dump issue, missing sync with validation interface. (furszy) 67c754a qa: Sync with validationinterface queue in sync_mempools (MarcoFalke) 596056c [validation] Do not check for double spent zerocoins. (furszy) 0c4642c Add helper to wait for validation interface queue to catch up (Matt Corallo) cc91d44 Block ActivateBestChain to empty validationinterface queue (Matt Corallo) 0c68e2f Add an interface to get the queue depth out of CValidationInterface (Matt Corallo) 31c7974 Decouple block processing cs_main lock from the rest of inv get data requests (furszy) da7c0f7 Refactor ProcessGetData avoiding to lock cs_main for its entire time. (furszy) 10efbe5 net_processing: making PushTierTwoGetDataRequest return a bool in case of pushing the message. (furszy) 51dea23 net_processing move-only: decouple tier two get data request into its own function. (furszy) 1c9fe10 RPC: listunspent remove redundant wallet check (furszy) 4d927b0 Add a dev notes document describing the new wallet RPC blocking (Matt Corallo) 5f521fd Give ZMQ consistent order with UpdatedBlockTip on scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) 7d05997 Fix wallet RPC race by waiting for callbacks in sendrawtransaction (Matt Corallo) c7ab490 Also call other wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) 31a8790 Use callbacks to cache whether wallet transactions are in mempool (Matt Corallo) f6df6e4 Add calls to CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() in RPCs (furszy) 24a3ce4 Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() (Matt Corallo) 40ed4c4 Add CallFunctionInQueue to wait on validation interface queue drain (Matt Corallo) 268be9c Call TransactionRemovedFromMempool in the CScheduler thread (Matt Corallo) 1fa0d70 Add a CValidationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: Concluding with the validation <--> wallet asynchronous signal processing work started in #2082, #2118, #2150, #2192, #2195. Effectively moving every validation interface callback to a background thread without locking `cs_main` for its entire process (each handler can now request `cs_main` lock only when/if they need it). This has a direct performance improvement on the synchronization time (which i haven't measured yet because there is one/two more PRs over the wallet and GUI areas, probably large as well, on top of this one and #2201 that should boost the sync time a lot more). Containing the following changes: * Adaptations coming from bitcoin#10286. * Adaptations coming from bitcoin#11824 (this one is different for us, take the base idea when you review it). Essentially solves a severe memory leak introduced previously in 10286 and improves `cs_main` lock acquisitions as well. * net_processing: decouple and refactor tier two inv data request processing. * bitcoin#12206 ACKs for top commit: random-zebra: Great job! 🍻 ACK 3d11027 Fuzzbawls: ACK 3d11027 Tree-SHA512: 60a25604fb8a3ad0553ccb074aed99c1b3c6f8a765b40c1b43f25412373cbd2a9e4f0f413d45cf694bd62e48512c936099ffb7a0d23a1b97576cb33283ca05ac

zcash: cherry picked from commit 2b4b345 zcash: bitcoin/bitcoin#10286

zcash: cherry picked from commit 89f0312 zcash: bitcoin/bitcoin#10286

Bitcoin 0.16 locking PRs These are locking changes from upstream (bitcoin core) release 0.16 (Aug 14, 2017, to Feb 16, 2018), oldest to newest (when merged to the master branch). Each commit also includes a reference both to the PR and the upstream commit. - bitcoin/bitcoin#11126 - Excludes changes to wallet tests that we don't have. - bitcoin/bitcoin#10916 - first commit only; second commit already merged by d9fcc2b - bitcoin/bitcoin#11107 - Only the last commit. - bitcoin/bitcoin#11593 - bitcoin/bitcoin#11585 - bitcoin/bitcoin#11618 - bitcoin/bitcoin#10286 - Only the third and last commits. - bitcoin/bitcoin#11870 - bitcoin/bitcoin#12330 - bitcoin/bitcoin#12366 - bitcoin/bitcoin#12368 - bitcoin/bitcoin#12333 - Only the first commit.

… (without cs_main) 89f0312 Remove redundant pwallet nullptr check (Matt Corallo) c4784b5 Add a dev notes document describing the new wallet RPC blocking (Matt Corallo) 3ea8b75 Give ZMQ consistent order with UpdatedBlockTip on scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) cb06edf Fix wallet RPC race by waiting for callbacks in sendrawtransaction (Matt Corallo) e545ded Also call other wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (Matt Corallo) 17220d6 Use callbacks to cache whether wallet transactions are in mempool (Matt Corallo) 5d67a78 Add calls to CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() in RPCs (Matt Corallo) 5ee3172 Add CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() (Matt Corallo) 0b2f42d Add CallFunctionInQueue to wait on validation interface queue drain (Matt Corallo) 2b4b345 Add ability to assert a lock is not held in DEBUG_LOCKORDER (Matt Corallo) 0343676 Call TransactionRemovedFromMempool in the CScheduler thread (Matt Corallo) a7d3936 Add a CValidationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: Based on bitcoin#10179, this effectively reverts bitcoin#9583, regaining most of the original speedups of bitcoin#7946. This concludes the work of bitcoin#9725, bitcoin#10178, and bitcoin#10179. See individual commit messages for more information. Tree-SHA512: eead4809b0a75d1fb33b0765174ff52c972e45040635e38cf3686cef310859c1e6b3c00e7186cbd17374c6ae547bfbd6c1718fe36f26c76ba8a8b052d6ed7bc9

…tion d31e5c1 Fix shutdown in case of errors during initialization (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: PR bitcoin#10286 introduced a few steps which are not robust to early shutdown in initialization. Stumbled upon this with bitcoin#11781, not sure if there are other scenarios that can trigger it, but it's good to harden against this in any case. E.g. ``` $ src/bitcoind -debuglogfile=/dfdf Error: Could not open debug log file /dfdf Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. UnregisterValidationInterface (pwalletIn=0x0) at /.../bitcoin/src/validationinterface.cpp:82 82 g_signals.m_internals->BlockChecked.disconnect(boost::bind(&CValidationInterface::BlockChecked, pwalletIn, _1, _2)); (gdb) bt #0 UnregisterValidationInterface (pwalletIn=0x0) at /.../bitcoin/src/validationinterface.cpp:82 #1 0x00005555555a11fc in Shutdown () at /.../bitcoin/src/init.cpp:196 #2 0x00005555555961cc in AppInit (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at /.../bitcoin/src/bitcoind.cpp:183 #3 0x0000555555596249 in main (argc=0, argv=0x555555ecf200) at /.../bitcoin/src/bitcoind.cpp:19 ``` Tree-SHA512: 7dd9570a9803514a17781bfadf1edde47e96df4e852cce2f423cab422e005fb94d44e777af1a6ea5167b04a4d889e848ae7a61a7e0e94232247ddea32ee70fc8

TheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2017

Give CValidationInterface Support for calling notifications on the CScheduler Thread #10179

Merged

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch from 588716f to 6fb5719 Compare April 27, 2017 02:15

ryanofsky reviewed May 2, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch from 6fb5719 to 74df7e7 Compare May 3, 2017 19:20

mchrostowski suggested changes May 3, 2017

View reviewed changes

ryanofsky mentioned this pull request May 4, 2017

Synchronization problems with wallet. #9584

Closed

ryanofsky reviewed May 4, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch from 9432174 to 6b392fc Compare May 4, 2017 20:54

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch from 6b392fc to 2c306d7 Compare May 5, 2017 17:51

ryanofsky reviewed May 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch 3 times, most recently from ac54839 to 91aad9f Compare June 8, 2017 15:30

ryanofsky reviewed Jun 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch 2 times, most recently from 4acf2bc to ae0c833 Compare June 9, 2017 17:11

ryanofsky reviewed Jun 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

ryanofsky reviewed Jun 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4 branch 4 times, most recently from e803cde to e361774 Compare June 21, 2017 14:49

PastaPastaPasta mentioned this pull request Feb 29, 2020

Backport 11651 dashpay/dash#3358

Merged

codablock mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2020

Fix issues introduced with asynchronous signal handling dashpay/dash#3369

Merged

PastaPastaPasta mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2020

Merge #13622: Remove mapRequest tracking that just effects Qt display. dashpay/dash#3694

Merged

furszy mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2021

Call wallet/validation notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) PIVX-Project/PIVX#2203

Merged

LarryRuane mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2021

Bitcoin 0.16 locking PRs zcash/zcash#5017

Merged

str4d mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2021

Sync backports zcash/zcash#5057

Merged

LarryRuane pushed a commit to LarryRuane/zcash that referenced this pull request Apr 13, 2021

Add ability to assert a lock is not held in DEBUG_LOCKORDER

756a33a

zcash: cherry picked from commit 2b4b345 zcash: bitcoin/bitcoin#10286

LarryRuane pushed a commit to LarryRuane/zcash that referenced this pull request Apr 13, 2021

Remove redundant pwallet nullptr check

3145dce

zcash: cherry picked from commit 89f0312 zcash: bitcoin/bitcoin#10286

fdoving mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2021

backport: Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) (bitcoin #10286) RavenProject/Ravencoin#1168

Open

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2022

		@@ -2648,6 +2712,10 @@ UniValue fundrawtransaction(const JSONRPCRequest& request)

		RPCTypeCheck(request.params, boost::assign::list_of(UniValue::VSTR));

		// Make sure the results are valid at least up to the most recent block

		static CMainSignals g_signals;

		CMainSignals::CMainSignals() {

		@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ class CScheduler
		// Call func at/after time t
		void schedule(Function f, boost::chrono::system_clock::time_point t);

		@@ -1147,6 +1153,50 @@ void CWallet::BlockDisconnected(const std::shared_ptr<const CBlock>& pblock) {



		void CWallet::BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain() {

Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) #10286

Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) #10286

Uh oh!

Conversation

TheBlueMatt commented Apr 27, 2017

Uh oh!

ryanofsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented May 3, 2017

Uh oh!

mchrostowski left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ryanofsky May 4, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mchrostowski May 4, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mchrostowski left a comment •

edited

Loading

ryanofsky May 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

mchrostowski May 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading