mirror of
https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse.git
synced 2026-04-19 05:48:31 +00:00
Only mark block lookups as pending if block is importing from gossip (#8112)
- PR https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/8045 introduced a regression of how lookup sync interacts with the da_checker. Now in unstable block import from the HTTP API also insert the block in the da_checker while the block is being execution verified. If lookup sync finds the block in the da_checker in `NotValidated` state it expects a `GossipBlockProcessResult` message sometime later. That message is only sent after block import in gossip. I confirmed in our node's logs for 4/4 cases of stuck lookups are caused by this sequence of events: - Receive block through API, insert into da_checker in fn process_block in put_pre_execution_block - Create lookup and leave in AwaitingDownload(block in processing cache) state - Block from HTTP API finishes importing - Lookup is left stuck Closes https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/8104 - https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/8110 was my initial solution attempt but we can't send the `GossipBlockProcessResult` event from the `http_api` crate without adding new channels, which seems messy. For a given node it's rare that a lookup is created at the same time that a block is being published. This PR solves https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/8104 by allowing lookup sync to import the block twice in that case. Co-Authored-By: dapplion <35266934+dapplion@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ impl<T: BeaconChainTypes> BeaconBlockStreamer<T> {
|
||||
if self.check_caches == CheckCaches::Yes {
|
||||
match self.beacon_chain.get_block_process_status(&root) {
|
||||
BlockProcessStatus::Unknown => None,
|
||||
BlockProcessStatus::NotValidated(block)
|
||||
BlockProcessStatus::NotValidated(block, _)
|
||||
| BlockProcessStatus::ExecutionValidated(block) => {
|
||||
metrics::inc_counter(&metrics::BEACON_REQRESP_PRE_IMPORT_CACHE_HITS);
|
||||
Some(block)
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user