Fixed concurrency issue that allowed multiple miners instantiation. #909
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
dzajkowski
changed the title
leo-bogastry
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2021
AnastasiiaL
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2021
ten15bit
reviewed
Jan 28, 2021
Contributor
ten15bit
left a comment
ten15bit
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reasons to not turn EthashConsensus into an actor instead of using low level concurrency mechanisms?
Contributor
Author
I would prefer such a solution but after some digging I found that the reorg would touch a lot of code. this solution isn't pretty but it's small. |
dzajkowski
force-pushed
the
fix-ethconsensus-concurrent-startmining
branch
from
2c28513 to
a81e65f
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is a refresh of #777
Description
Concurrent
EthashConsensus.startMiningProcess()method invocation can lead to several miner actors.There's no thread mutual exclusion and atomicity between
AtomicReference.get()andAtomicReference.set()calls.Proposed Solution
synchronizedorReentrantReadWriteis recommended to ensure that only one miner is created.AtomicReferenceis redundant, since no CAS-related methods are used.Solution assumes that no thread synchronization is needed when miner already exists.