Reset LSPS5 persistence_in_flight counter on persist errors#4597
Reset LSPS5 persistence_in_flight counter on persist errors#4597tnull wants to merge 1 commit intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
persistence_in_flight counter on persist errors#4597Conversation
`LSPS5ServiceHandler::persist` incremented `persistence_in_flight` at the top as a single-runner gate, but only decremented it on the success path: each interior `?` on a `kv_store` future propagated the error out of the function while leaving the counter at >= 1. After one transient I/O failure (disk full, brief unavailability of a remote `KVStore`, EPERM, etc.) every subsequent `persist()` call hit the `fetch_add > 0` short-circuit and silently returned `Ok(false)`. The in-memory `needs_persist` flags then continued to grow without ever reaching disk, so webhook state, removals, and notification cooldowns were lost on the next process restart — including the spec-mandated webhook retention/pruning state — without any error surfaced to the operator. The counter is monotonic, so recovery required a process restart. Adopt the LSPS1 / LSPS2 pattern: split the body into an inner `do_persist` and an outer `persist` that unconditionally clears the counter via `store(0)` after the call returns, regardless of outcome. A failed write now still propagates `Err`, but the next `persist()` attempt actually retries the write instead of no-op'ing. Co-Authored-By: HAL 9000
|
👋 I see @joostjager was un-assigned. |
|
Now let me finalize my review. The code change is correct — it brings LSPS5 in line with the existing LSPS1/LSPS2 pattern. The fix properly ensures the I found no bugs, security issues, or logic errors in this PR. No issues found. The code change correctly adopts the established LSPS1/LSPS2 |
|
|
||
| let res = self.do_persist().await; | ||
| debug_assert!(res.is_err() || self.persistence_in_flight.load(Ordering::Acquire) == 0); | ||
| self.persistence_in_flight.store(0, Ordering::Release); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, this races with a second writer that is started at the same time. We should move the loop out of the inner method and into this method to control the flag entirely in this method.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4597 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.84% 86.28% -0.56%
==========================================
Files 161 159 -2
Lines 109260 109275 +15
Branches 109260 109275 +15
==========================================
- Hits 94882 94292 -590
- Misses 11797 12377 +580
- Partials 2581 2606 +25
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
4 participants
LSPS5ServiceHandler::persistincrementedpersistence_in_flightat the top as a single-runner gate, but only decremented it on the success path: each interior?on akv_storefuture propagated the error out of the function while leaving the counter at >= 1. After one transient I/O failure (disk full, brief unavailability of a remoteKVStore, EPERM, etc.) every subsequentpersist()call hit thefetch_add > 0short-circuit and silently returnedOk(false).The in-memory
needs_persistflags then continued to grow without ever reaching disk, so webhook state, removals, and notification cooldowns were lost on the next process restart — including the spec-mandated webhook retention/pruning state — without any error surfaced to the operator. The counter is monotonic, so recovery required a process restart.Adopt the LSPS1 / LSPS2 pattern: split the body into an inner
do_persistand an outerpersistthat unconditionally clears the counter viastore(0)after the call returns, regardless of outcome. A failed write now still propagatesErr, but the nextpersist()attempt actually retries the write instead of no-op'ing.Co-Authored-By: HAL 9000