kvserver: 10% synthetic reproposals #97173
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
|
It looks like your PR touches production code but doesn't add or edit any test code. Did you consider adding tests to your PR? 🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf. |
|
This change is |
tbg
force-pushed
the
force-reproposals
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ae8dc25 to
39d89b9
Compare
tbg
force-pushed
the
force-reproposals
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cf65770 to
7d713ce
Compare
tbg
force-pushed
the
force-reproposals
branch
from
7d713ce to
678b619
Compare
tbg
added a commit
to tbg/cockroach
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2023
In cockroachdb#94633, I introduced[^1] an assertion that attempted to catch cases in which we might otherwise accidentally end up applying a proposal twice. This assertion had a false positive, see the updated comment within. I was able to reproduce the failure within ~minutes via `./experiment.sh` in cockroachdb#97173 as of 33dcdef. Closes cockroachdb#94633. [^1]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/94633/files#diff-50e458584d176deae52b20a7c04461b3e4110795c8c9a307cf7ee6696ba6bc60R238 Epic: none Release note: None
Now one may `./scripts/gceworker.ssh get /home/foo bar`. Previously it would try to copy from `go/src/github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/home/foo/bar`. Epic: none Release note: None
In cockroachdb#94633, I introduced[^1] an assertion that attempted to catch cases in which we might otherwise accidentally end up applying a proposal twice. This assertion had a false positive, see the updated comment within. I was able to reproduce the failure within ~minutes via `./experiment.sh` in cockroachdb#97173 as of 33dcdef. Better testing of these cases would be desirable. Unfortunately, while there is an abstraction over command application (`apply.Task`), most of the logic worth testing lives in `(*replicaAppBatch)` which is essentially a `*Replica` with more moving parts attached. This does not lend itself well to unit testing. I had a run[^1][^2][^3] earlier this year to make log application standalone, but then didn't have enough time to follow through. It would be desirable to do so at a later date, perhaps with the explicit goals of having interactions like the one discussion in this PR unit become testable. No release note because unreleased (except perhaps in an alpha). [3]: cockroachdb#93309 [2]: cockroachdb#93266 [1]: cockroachdb#93239 Closes cockroachdb#94633. [^1]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/94633/files#diff-50e458584d176deae52b20a7c04461b3e4110795c8c9a307cf7ee6696ba6bc60R238 Epic: none Release note: None
Epic: none Release note: None
`raftpb.Entry` is a `fmt.Stringer`, so by embedding it we were making the string representation of structs embedding it worse. Concretely, in cockroachdb#97173 I noticed that `*replicatedCmd` ended up just printing the `raftpb.Entry` that it wrapped, which was not helpful. Epic: none Release note: None
Epic: none Release note: None
It's not Warning-worthy since this is hit in production, often under some kind of overload. And if we're logging this, might as well include enough information to identify the log entry for which a reproposal was attempted. This is helpful for investigations such as cockroachdb#70894, cockroachdb#97287, cockroachdb#97102, etc. Epic: none Release note: None
Epic: none Release note: None
This is an experiment to expose a class of bugs in the replication layer related to reproposals. Epic: none Release note: None
…ve', 'avoid-stringer-embedding' and 'gceworker-get-abs' into force-reproposals
tbg
force-pushed
the
force-reproposals
branch
from
09bd1ec to
10c507c
Compare
tbg
added a commit
to tbg/cockroach
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2023
In cockroachdb#94633, I introduced[^1] an assertion that attempted to catch cases in which we might otherwise accidentally end up applying a proposal twice. This assertion had a false positive. I was able to reproduce the failure within ~minutes via `./experiment.sh` in cockroachdb#97173 as of 33dcdef. Better testing of these cases would be desirable. Unfortunately, while there is an abstraction over command application (`apply.Task`), most of the logic worth testing lives in `(*replicaAppBatch)` which is essentially a `*Replica` with more moving parts attached. This does not lend itself well to unit testing. I had a run[^2][^3][^4] earlier this year to make log application standalone, but then didn't have enough time to follow through. It would be desirable to do so at a later date, perhaps with the explicit goals of having interactions like the one discussion in this PR unit become testable. [^4]: cockroachdb#93309 [^3]: cockroachdb#93266 [^2]: cockroachdb#93239 [^1]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/94633/files#diff-50e458584d176deae52b20a7c04461b3e4110795c8c9a307cf7ee6696ba6bc60R238 This assertion was previously trying to assert too much at a distance and was not only incorrect, but additionally inscrutable. It was mixing up two assertions, the first one of which is sensible: If an entry is accepted, it must not be superseded by inflight proposal. If this were violated, this superseded proposal could also apply, resulting in a failure of replay protection. This assertion is now still around as a stand-alone assertion. The other half of the assertion was more confused: if an entry is rejected, it was claiming that it couldn't also be superseded. The thinking was that if a superseding log entry exists, maybe it could apply, and that would be bad since we just told the waiting client that their proposal got rejected. This reasoning is incorrect, as the following example shows. Consider the following initial situation: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 And next: - a new lease enters the log at idx 101 (lease seq = 2) - an identical copy of idx 100 enters the log at idx 102 - we apply idx 100, leading to superseding reproposal at idx 103 resulting in the log: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 101: lease seq = 2 log idx 102: (same as idx 100) log idx 103: cmd X at LAI = 20000, lease seq = 1 During application of idx 102, we get a *permanent* rejection and yet the entry is superseded (by the proposal at idx 103). This would erroneously trigger the assertion, even though this is a legal sequence of events with no detrimental outcomes: the superseding proposal will always have the same lease sequence as its superseded copies, so it will also fail. I initially tried only soften the assertion a *little bit*. Observing that the example above led to a *permanent* rejection, should we only require that a proposal (which in this assertion is always local) is not superseded if it got rejected due to its lease index (which implies that it passed the lease check)? It turns out that this is primarily an assertion on when superseded proposals are counted as "local" at this point in the code: if there were multiple copies of this rejected proposal in the current `appTask` (i.e. the current `CommittedEntries` slice handed to us for application by raft), then all copies are initially local; and a copy that successfully spawns a superseding proposal would be made non-local from that point on. On the face of it, All other copies in the same `appTask` would now hit the assertion (erroneously): they are local, they are rejected, so why don't they enter the branch? The magic ingredient is that if an entry is superseded when we handle the lease index rejection, we also unlink the proposal from it. So these never enter this path since it's not local at this point. For example, if these are the log entries to apply (all at valid lease seq): log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) and idxs 99-101 are applied in one batch, then idx 100 would spawn a reproposal at a new lease applied index: log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 <- applied log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 20000 <- not in current batch When we apply 101, we observe an illegal lease index, but the proposal supersedes the entry, so we mark it as non-local and don't enter the branch that contains the assertion. The above reasoning is very difficult to understand, and it happens too far removed from where the interesting state changes happen. Also, for testing purposes it is interesting to introduce "errors" in the lease applied index assignment to artificially exercise these reproposal mechanisms. In doing so, these assertions can trip because the lease applied index assigned to a reproposal might accidentally (or intentionally!) match the existing lease applied index, in which case copies of the command in the same batch now *don't* consider themselves superseded. The value of this testing outweighs the very limited benefit of this branch of the assertion. An argument could even be made that this assertion alone as negative benefit due to its complexity. We are removing it in this commit and will instead work towards simplifying the mechanisms that played a role in explaining the asssertion. Closes cockroachdb#94633. Closes cockroachdb#97347. No release note because unreleased (except perhaps in an alpha). Epic: none Release note: None
tbg
added a commit
to tbg/cockroach
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2023
In cockroachdb#94633, I introduced[^1] an assertion that attempted to catch cases in which we might otherwise accidentally end up applying a proposal twice. This assertion had a false positive. I was able to reproduce the failure within ~minutes via `./experiment.sh` in cockroachdb#97173 as of 33dcdef. Better testing of these cases would be desirable. Unfortunately, while there is an abstraction over command application (`apply.Task`), most of the logic worth testing lives in `(*replicaAppBatch)` which is essentially a `*Replica` with more moving parts attached. This does not lend itself well to unit testing. I had a run[^2][^3][^4] earlier this year to make log application standalone, but then didn't have enough time to follow through. It would be desirable to do so at a later date, perhaps with the explicit goals of having interactions like the one discussion in this PR unit become testable. [^4]: cockroachdb#93309 [^3]: cockroachdb#93266 [^2]: cockroachdb#93239 [^1]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/94633/files#diff-50e458584d176deae52b20a7c04461b3e4110795c8c9a307cf7ee6696ba6bc60R238 This assertion was previously trying to assert too much at a distance and was not only incorrect, but additionally inscrutable. It was mixing up two assertions, the first one of which is sensible: If an entry is accepted, it must not be superseded by inflight proposal. If this were violated, this superseded proposal could also apply, resulting in a failure of replay protection. This assertion is now still around as a stand-alone assertion. The other half of the assertion was more confused: if an entry is rejected, it was claiming that it couldn't also be superseded. The thinking was that if a superseding log entry exists, maybe it could apply, and that would be bad since we just told the waiting client that their proposal got rejected. This reasoning is incorrect, as the following example shows. Consider the following initial situation: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 And next: - a new lease enters the log at idx 101 (lease seq = 2) - an identical copy of idx 100 enters the log at idx 102 - we apply idx 100, leading to superseding reproposal at idx 103 resulting in the log: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 101: lease seq = 2 log idx 102: (same as idx 100) log idx 103: cmd X at LAI = 20000, lease seq = 1 During application of idx 102, we get a *permanent* rejection and yet the entry is superseded (by the proposal at idx 103). This would erroneously trigger the assertion, even though this is a legal sequence of events with no detrimental outcomes: the superseding proposal will always have the same lease sequence as its superseded copies, so it will also fail. I initially tried only soften the assertion a *little bit*. Observing that the example above led to a *permanent* rejection, should we only require that a proposal (which in this assertion is always local) is not superseded if it got rejected due to its lease index (which implies that it passed the lease check)? It turns out that this is primarily an assertion on when superseded proposals are counted as "local" at this point in the code: if there were multiple copies of this rejected proposal in the current `appTask` (i.e. the current `CommittedEntries` slice handed to us for application by raft), then all copies are initially local; and a copy that successfully spawns a superseding proposal would be made non-local from that point on. On the face of it, All other copies in the same `appTask` would now hit the assertion (erroneously): they are local, they are rejected, so why don't they enter the branch? The magic ingredient is that if an entry is superseded when we handle the lease index rejection, we also unlink the proposal from it. So these never enter this path since it's not local at this point. For example, if these are the log entries to apply (all at valid lease seq): log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) and idxs 99-101 are applied in one batch, then idx 100 would spawn a reproposal at a new lease applied index: log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 <- applied log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 20000 <- not in current batch When we apply 101, we observe an illegal lease index, but the proposal supersedes the entry, so we mark it as non-local and don't enter the branch that contains the assertion. The above reasoning is very difficult to understand, and it happens too far removed from where the interesting state changes happen. Also, for testing purposes it is interesting to introduce "errors" in the lease applied index assignment to artificially exercise these reproposal mechanisms. In doing so, these assertions can trip because the lease applied index assigned to a reproposal might accidentally (or intentionally!) match the existing lease applied index, in which case copies of the command in the same batch now *don't* consider themselves superseded. The value of this testing outweighs the very limited benefit of this branch of the assertion. An argument could even be made that this assertion alone as negative benefit due to its complexity. We are removing it in this commit and will instead work towards simplifying the mechanisms that played a role in explaining the asssertion. Closes cockroachdb#94633. Closes cockroachdb#97347. No release note because unreleased (except perhaps in an alpha). Epic: none Release note: None
craig bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2023
97564: kvserver: narrow down 'finishing a proposal with outstanding reproposal' r=pavelkalinnikov a=tbg In #94633, I introduced[^1] an assertion that attempted to catch cases in which we might otherwise accidentally end up applying a proposal twice. This assertion had a false positive. I was able to reproduce the failure within ~minutes via `./experiment.sh` in #97173 as of 33dcdef. Better testing of these cases would be desirable. Unfortunately, while there is an abstraction over command application (`apply.Task`), most of the logic worth testing lives in `(*replicaAppBatch)` which is essentially a `*Replica` with more moving parts attached. This does not lend itself well to unit testing. I had a run[^2][^3][^4] earlier this year to make log application standalone, but then didn't have enough time to follow through. It would be desirable to do so at a later date, perhaps with the explicit goals of having interactions like the one discussion in this PR unit become testable. [^4]: #93309 [^3]: #93266 [^2]: #93239 [^1]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/94633/files#diff-50e458584d176deae52b20a7c04461b3e4110795c8c9a307cf7ee6696ba6bc60R238 This assertion was previously trying to assert too much at a distance and was not only incorrect, but additionally inscrutable. It was mixing up two assertions, the first one of which is sensible: If an entry is accepted, it must not be superseded by inflight proposal. If this were violated, this superseded proposal could also apply, resulting in a failure of replay protection. This assertion is now still around as a stand-alone assertion. The other half of the assertion was more confused: if an entry is rejected, it was claiming that it couldn't also be superseded. The thinking was that if a superseding log entry exists, maybe it could apply, and that would be bad since we just told the waiting client that their proposal got rejected. This reasoning is incorrect, as the following example shows. Consider the following initial situation: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 And next: - a new lease enters the log at idx 101 (lease seq = 2) - an identical copy of idx 100 enters the log at idx 102 - we apply idx 100, leading to superseding reproposal at idx 103 resulting in the log: [lease seq is 1] log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000, lease seq = 1 log idx 101: lease seq = 2 log idx 102: (same as idx 100) log idx 103: cmd X at LAI = 20000, lease seq = 1 During application of idx 102, we get a *permanent* rejection and yet the entry is superseded (by the proposal at idx 103). This would erroneously trigger the assertion, even though this is a legal sequence of events with no detrimental outcomes: the superseding proposal will always have the same lease sequence as its superseded copies, so it will also fail. I initially tried only soften the assertion a *little bit*. Observing that the example above led to a *permanent* rejection, should we only require that a proposal (which in this assertion is always local) is not superseded if it got rejected due to its lease index (which implies that it passed the lease check)? It turns out that this is primarily an assertion on when superseded proposals are counted as "local" at this point in the code: if there were multiple copies of this rejected proposal in the current `appTask` (i.e. the current `CommittedEntries` slice handed to us for application by raft), then all copies are initially local; and a copy that successfully spawns a superseding proposal would be made non-local from that point on. On the face of it, All other copies in the same `appTask` would now hit the assertion (erroneously): they are local, they are rejected, so why don't they enter the branch? The magic ingredient is that if an entry is superseded when we handle the lease index rejection, we also unlink the proposal from it. So these never enter this path since it's not local at this point. For example, if these are the log entries to apply (all at valid lease seq): log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) and idxs 99-101 are applied in one batch, then idx 100 would spawn a reproposal at a new lease applied index: log idx 99: unrelated cmd at LAI 10000 log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 10000 <- applied log idx 101: (identical copy of idx 100) log idx 100: cmd X at LAI 20000 <- not in current batch When we apply 101, we observe an illegal lease index, but the proposal supersedes the entry, so we mark it as non-local and don't enter the branch that contains the assertion. The above reasoning is very difficult to understand, and it happens too far removed from where the interesting state changes happen. Also, for testing purposes it is interesting to introduce "errors" in the lease applied index assignment to artificially exercise these reproposal mechanisms. In doing so, these assertions can trip because the lease applied index assigned to a reproposal might accidentally (or intentionally!) match the existing lease applied index, in which case copies of the command in the same batch now *don't* consider themselves superseded. The value of this testing outweighs the very limited benefit of this branch of the assertion. An argument could even be made that this assertion alone as negative benefit due to its complexity. We are removing it in this commit and will instead work towards simplifying the mechanisms that played a role in explaining the asssertion. Closes #97102. Closes #97347. Closes #97447. Closes #97612. No release note because unreleased (except perhaps in an alpha). Epic: none Release note: None Co-authored-by: Tobias Grieger <tobias.b.grieger@gmail.com>
|
Obsolete with #97779 |
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.
Hoping to shake out something relevant for
#97102 or
#97141.
Not intended for merge. Can maybe turn this into a metamorphic var down
the road. For now running manually via
./experiment.sh.To date, it hasn't produced anything. For the first runs, I ~immediately
got a closed timestamp regression. This was puzzling, but then also
disappeared, so I think my OSX clock might have been adjusting over
those few minutes.
Epic: none
Release note: None