diff --git a/src/ripple/consensus/Consensus.h b/src/ripple/consensus/Consensus.h index 8115e88c9e1..98742e41fc0 100644 --- a/src/ripple/consensus/Consensus.h +++ b/src/ripple/consensus/Consensus.h @@ -1759,15 +1759,27 @@ Consensus::updateOurPositions(bool const share) else { int neededWeight; + // It's possible to be at a close time impasse (described below), so + // keep track of whether this round has taken a long time. + bool stuck = false; if (convergePercent_ < parms.avMID_CONSENSUS_TIME) + { neededWeight = parms.avINIT_CONSENSUS_PCT; + } else if (convergePercent_ < parms.avLATE_CONSENSUS_TIME) + { neededWeight = parms.avMID_CONSENSUS_PCT; + } else if (convergePercent_ < parms.avSTUCK_CONSENSUS_TIME) + { neededWeight = parms.avLATE_CONSENSUS_PCT; + } else + { neededWeight = parms.avSTUCK_CONSENSUS_PCT; + stuck = true; + } int participants = currPeerPositions_.size(); if (mode_.get() == ConsensusMode::proposing) @@ -1787,57 +1799,156 @@ Consensus::updateOurPositions(bool const share) << " nw:" << neededWeight << " thrV:" << threshVote << " thrC:" << threshConsensus; - // An impasse is possible unless a validator pretends to change - // its close time vote. Imagine 5 validators. 3 have positions - // for close time t1, and 2 with t2. That's an impasse because - // 75% will never be met. However, if one of the validators voting - // for t2 switches to t1, then that will be 80% and sufficient - // to break the impasse. It's also OK for those agreeing - // with the 3 to pretend to vote for the one with 2, because - // that will never exceed the threshold of 75%, even with as - // few as 3 validators. The most it can achieve is 2/3. - for (auto& [t, v] : closeTimeVotes) + // Choose a close time and decide whether there is consensus for it. + // + // Close time is chosen based on the threshVote threshold + // calculated above. If a close time has votes equal to or greater than + // that threshold, then that is the best close time. If multiple + // close times have an equal number of votes, then choose the greatest + // of them. Ensure that our close time then matches that which meets + // the criteria. But if no close time meet the criteria, make no + // changes. + // + // This is implemented slightly differently for validators vs + // non-validators. For non-validators, it is sufficient to merely + // count the close times from all peer positions to determine + // the best. Validators, however, risk putting the network into an + // impasse unless they are able to change their own position without + // first having counted it towards the close time totals. + // + // Here's how the impasse could occur: + // Imagine 5 validators. 3 have close time t1, and 2 have t2. + // As consensus time increases, the threshVote threshold also increases. + // Once threshVote exceeds 60%, no members of either set of validators + // will change their close times. + // + // Avoiding the impasse means that validators should identify + // whether they currently have the best close time. First, choose + // the close time with the most votes. However, if multiple close times + // have the same number of votes, pick the latest of them. + // If the validator does not currently have the best close time, + // switch to it and increase the local vote tally for that better + // close time. This will result in consensus in the next iteration + // assuming that the peer messages propagate successfully. + // In this case the validators in set t1 will remain the same but + // those in t2 switch to t1. + // + // Another wrinkle, however, is that too many position changes + // from validators also has a destabilizing affect. Consensus can + // take longer if peers have to keep re-calculating positions, + // and mistakes can be made if peers settle on the wrong position. + // Therefore, avoiding an impasse should also minimize the likelihood + // of gratuitous change of position. + // + // The solution for validators is to first track whether it's + // possible that the network is at an impasse based on how much + // time this current consensus round has taken. This is reflected + // in the "stuck" boolean. When stuck, validators perform the + // above-described position change based solely on whether or not + // they agree with the best position, and ignore the threshVote + // criteria used for the earlier part of the phase. + // + // Determining whether there is close time consensus is very simple + // in comparison: if votes for the best close time meet or exceed + // threshConsensus, then we have close time consensus. Otherwise, not. + + // First, find the best close time with which to agree: first criteria + // is the close time with the most votes. If a tie, the latest + // close time of those tied for the maximum number of votes. + std::multimap votesByCloseTime; + std::stringstream ss; + ss << "Close time calculation for ledger sequence " + << static_cast(previousLedger_.seq()) + 1 + << " Close times and vote count are as follows: "; + bool first = true; + for (auto const& [closeTime, voteCount] : closeTimeVotes) { - if (adaptor_.validating() && - t != asCloseTime(result_->position.closeTime())) - { - JLOG(j_.debug()) << "Others have voted for a close time " - "different than ours. Adding our vote " - "to this one in case it is necessary " - "to break an impasse."; - ++v; - } - JLOG(j_.debug()) - << "CCTime: seq " - << static_cast(previousLedger_.seq()) + 1 << ": " - << t.time_since_epoch().count() << " has " << v << ", " - << threshVote << " required"; - - if (v >= threshVote) + if (first) + first = false; + else + ss << ','; + votesByCloseTime.insert({voteCount, closeTime}); + ss << closeTime.time_since_epoch().count() << ':' << voteCount; + } + // These always gets populated because currPeerPositions_ is not + // empty to end up here, so at least 1 close time has at least 1 vote. + assert(!currPeerPositions_.empty()); + std::optional maxVote; + std::set maxCloseTimes; + // Highest vote getter is last. Track each close time that is tied + // with the highest. + for (auto rit = votesByCloseTime.crbegin(); + rit != votesByCloseTime.crend(); + ++rit) + { + int const voteCount = rit->first; + if (!maxVote.has_value()) + maxVote = voteCount; + else if (voteCount < *maxVote) + break; + maxCloseTimes.insert(rit->second); + } + // The best close time is the latest close time of those that have + // the maximum number of votes. + NetClock::time_point const bestCloseTime = *maxCloseTimes.crbegin(); + ss << ". The best close time has the most votes. If there is a tie, " + "choose the latest. This is " + << bestCloseTime.time_since_epoch().count() << "with " << *maxVote + << " votes. "; + + // If we are a validator potentially at an impasse and our own close + // time is not the best, change our close time to match it and + // tally another vote for it. + if (adaptor_.validating() && stuck && + consensusCloseTime != bestCloseTime) + { + consensusCloseTime = bestCloseTime; + ++*maxVote; + ss << " We are a validator. Consensus has taken " + << result_->roundTime.read().count() + << "ms. Previous round " + "took " + << prevRoundTime_.count() + << "ms. Now changing our " + "close time to " + << bestCloseTime.time_since_epoch().count() + << " that " + "now has " + << *maxVote << " votes."; + } + // If the close time with the most votes also meets or exceeds the + // threshold to change our position, then change our position. + // Then check if we have met or exceeded the threshold for close + // time consensus. + // + // The 2nd check has been nested within the first historically. + // It's possible that this can be optimized by doing the + // 2nd check independently--this may make consensus happen faster in + // some cases. Then again, the trade-offs have not been modelled. + if (*maxVote >= threshVote) + { + consensusCloseTime = bestCloseTime; + ss << "Close time " << bestCloseTime.time_since_epoch().count() + << " has " << *maxVote << " votes, which is >= the threshold (" + << threshVote + << " to make that our position if it isn't already."; + if (*maxVote >= threshConsensus) { - // A close time has enough votes for us to try to agree - consensusCloseTime = t; - threshVote = v; - - if (threshVote >= threshConsensus) - { - haveCloseTimeConsensus_ = true; - // Make sure that the winning close time is the one - // that propagates to the rest of the function. - break; - } + haveCloseTimeConsensus_ = true; + ss << " The maximum votes also >= the threshold (" + << threshConsensus << ") for consensus."; } } if (!haveCloseTimeConsensus_) { - JLOG(j_.debug()) - << "No CT consensus:" - << " Proposers:" << currPeerPositions_.size() - << " Mode:" << to_string(mode_.get()) - << " Thresh:" << threshConsensus - << " Pos:" << consensusCloseTime.time_since_epoch().count(); + ss << " No CT consensus:" + << " Proposers:" << currPeerPositions_.size() + << " Mode:" << to_string(mode_.get()) + << " Thresh:" << threshConsensus + << " Pos:" << consensusCloseTime.time_since_epoch().count(); } + JLOG(j_.debug()) << ss.str(); } if (!ourNewSet &&