mirror of
https://github.com/corda/corda.git
synced 2024-12-19 13:08:04 +00:00
99e802c5c5
* Initial commit based on experimental kryo hook agent. * WIP * Added documentation. * Additional improvements and documentation following more testing. * Added field level instrumentation + basic type handlers for String, byteArray, charArray, primitive types. * Working version (without array type handling) * Missing build.gradle file. * Handle display of Arrays and String. Pruning output to avoid repetition (by loop depth, object count). * Added configurable StackDepth (for display purposes) and filter out ProgressTracker stacks. * Further array handling (Object arrays, 2D, 3D), improved display and general code cleanup. * Various fixes and improvements following demo to RP. * Clean-up * Further clean-up * Set checkpoint id before deserialization. * Update documentation * Final clean-up. * Minor documentation fixes. * Updates following PR review feedback. * Add changelog entry.
582 lines
34 KiB
ReStructuredText
582 lines
34 KiB
ReStructuredText
Flow framework internals
|
|
========================
|
|
|
|
Quasar
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
Instrumentation
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Quasar rewrites bytecode to achieve a couple of things:
|
|
|
|
#. Collect the contents of the execution stack. It uses thread-local datastructures for this.
|
|
#. Create a way to jump from suspension points. It uses an un-catchable exception throw for this.
|
|
#. Create a way to jump into suspension points. It uses a sequence of switch statements for this.
|
|
|
|
To this end Quasar transforms the JVM bytecode of ``@Suspendable`` functions. Take the following as an example:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
fun s0(a): Int {
|
|
val b = ..
|
|
n1()
|
|
s1()
|
|
|
|
for (..) {
|
|
val c = ..
|
|
n2()
|
|
s2(b)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
n3()
|
|
s3()
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun n1() { .. }
|
|
fun n2() { .. }
|
|
fun n3() { .. }
|
|
fun n4() { .. }
|
|
@Suspendable fun s1() { .. }
|
|
@Suspendable fun s2(b) { .. }
|
|
@Suspendable fun s3() { .. }
|
|
|
|
Quasar's javaagent, when loading bytecode, will look for functions with the ``@Suspendable`` annotation. Furthermore within these functions
|
|
it will look for callsites of other ``@Suspendable`` functions (which is why it's important to annotate interface/abstract class methods
|
|
**as well as** implementations). Note how ``n1``-``n4`` are thus not instrumented, and their callsites aren't relevant in the instrumentation
|
|
of ``s0``.
|
|
|
|
Disregarding any potential optimizations, quasar will then do the following transformation of ``s0``:
|
|
|
|
.. note:: The following code is pseudo-Kotlin code and includes non-existent constructs like arbitrary code labels and ``goto``.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
// Quasar uses this annotation to store some metadata about the function, and to check whether the function has been instrumented already
|
|
@Instrumented
|
|
fun s0(a): Int {
|
|
// A variable to temporarily store s0's return value later on
|
|
var __return = null
|
|
// A variable to indicate whether we are being resumed (we are jumping into a suspension's continuation), or this is a "regular" call.
|
|
lateinit var __resumed: Boolean
|
|
// Retrieve the Quasar-internal execution stack, which is stored in a thread-local.
|
|
var __stack = co.paralleluniverse.fibers.Stack.getStack()
|
|
if (__stack == null) {
|
|
// There's no stack, execute as a regular function
|
|
goto lMethodStart
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// We are being resumed, we are jumping into the suspension point
|
|
__resumed = true
|
|
// Retrieve the integer that indicates which part of this function we should be jumping into, stored in a thread-local.
|
|
val __entry = co.paralleluniverse.fibers.Stack.nextMethodEntry()
|
|
when (__entry) {
|
|
0 -> {
|
|
TODO
|
|
}
|
|
1 -> {
|
|
TODO
|
|
}
|
|
2 -> {
|
|
TODO
|
|
}
|
|
else -> {
|
|
// The entry value is not recognized, the function may be called in a non-suspending capacity.
|
|
val __isFunctionCalledAsSuspendable = co.paralleluniverse.fibers.Stack.isFirstInStackOrPushed()
|
|
if (_isFunctionCalledAsSuspendable) {
|
|
goto lMethodStart
|
|
}
|
|
__stack = null
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// The first code block, starting from the original non-transformed function start.
|
|
lMethodStart:
|
|
// This try-catch handles the Quasar-specific SuspendExecution exception. Quasar prevents the catching of this exception in user code.
|
|
try {
|
|
__resumed = false
|
|
val b = ..
|
|
TODO
|
|
} catch (e: SuspendExecution {
|
|
TODO
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
.. note:: The Quasar javaagent code doing the above rewriting can be found
|
|
`here <https://github.com/puniverse/quasar/blob/db0ac29f55bc0515023d67ab86a2178c5e6eeb94/quasar-core/src/main/java/co/paralleluniverse/fibers/instrument/InstrumentMethod.java#L328>`_.
|
|
Note that only the main parts of the instrumentation are shown above, the actual transformation is more complex and involves handling
|
|
corner cases and optimizations.
|
|
|
|
Fibers
|
|
^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
The above instrumentation allows the implementation of *co-operative* scheduling. That is, ``@Suspendable`` code can yield its execution by
|
|
throwing a ``SuspendExecution`` exception. This exception throw takes care of handing the control flow to a top-level try-catch, which then
|
|
has access to the thread-locally constructed execution stack, as well as a way to return to the suspension point using the "method entry"
|
|
list.
|
|
|
|
A ``Fiber`` thus is nothing more than a data structure holding the execution stack, the method entry list, as well as various bookkeeping
|
|
data related to the management of the ``Fiber``, e.g. its state enum or identifier.
|
|
|
|
The main try-catch that handles the yielding may be found `here <https://github.com/puniverse/quasar/blob/db0ac29f55bc0515023d67ab86a2178c5e6eeb94/quasar-core/src/main/java/co/paralleluniverse/fibers/Fiber.java#L790>`_.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: For those adventurous enough to explore the implementation, the execution stack and method entry list are merged into two growing
|
|
arrays in ``Stack``, one holding ``Object`` s (``dataObject``, for structured objects), the other holding ``long`` s (``dataLong``, for
|
|
primitive values). The arrays always have the same length, and they both contain values for each stack frame. The primitive stack
|
|
additionally has a "metadata" slot for each stack frame, this is where the "method entry" value is put, as well as frame size data.
|
|
|
|
.. _flow_internals_checkpoints_ref:
|
|
|
|
Checkpoints
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
The main idea behind checkpoints is to utilize the ``Fiber`` data structure and treat it as a serializable object capturing the state of a
|
|
running computation. Whenever a Corda-suspendable API is hit, we capture the execution stack and corresponding entry list, and serialize
|
|
it using `Kryo <https://github.com/EsotericSoftware/kryo>`_, a reflection-based serialization library capable of serializing unstructured
|
|
data. We thus get a handle to an arbitrary suspended computation.
|
|
|
|
In the flow state machine there is a strict separation of the user-code's state, and the flow framework's internal state. The former is the
|
|
serialized ``Fiber``, and the latter consists of structured objects.
|
|
|
|
The definition of a ``Checkpoint`` can be found `here <https://github.com/corda/corda/blob/dc4644643247d86b14165944f6925c2d2561eabc/node/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/node/services/statemachine/StateMachineState.kt#L55>`_.
|
|
|
|
The "user state" can be found in ``FlowState``. It is either
|
|
|
|
#. ``Unstarted``: in this case there's no ``Fiber`` to serialize yet, we serialize the ``FlowLogic`` instead.
|
|
#. ``Started``: in this case the flow has been started already, and has been suspended on some IO. We store the ``FlowIORequest`` and the
|
|
serialized ``Fiber``.
|
|
|
|
The rest of the ``Checkpoint`` deals with internal bookkeeping. Sessions, the subflow-stack, errors. Note how all data structures are
|
|
read-only. This is deliberate, to enable easier reasoning. Any "modification" of the checkpoint therefore implies making a shallow copy.
|
|
|
|
The state machine
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
The internals of the flow framework were designed as a state machine. A flow is a strange event loop that has a state, and goes through
|
|
state transitions triggered by events. The transitions may be either
|
|
|
|
#. User transitions, when we hand control to user-defined code in the cordapp. This may transition to a suspension point, the end of the
|
|
flow, or may abort exceptionally.
|
|
#. Internal transitions, where we keep strict track of side-effects and failure conditions.
|
|
|
|
The core data structures of the state machine are:
|
|
|
|
#. ``StateMachineState``: this is the full state of the state machine. It includes the ``Checkpoint`` (the persisted part of the state), and
|
|
other non-persisted state, most importantly the list of pending ``DeduplicationHandler`` s, to be described later.
|
|
#. ``Event``: Every state transition is triggered by one of these. These may be external events, notifying the state machine of something,
|
|
or internal events, for example suspensions.
|
|
#. ``Action``: These are created by internal state transitions. These transitions do not inherently execute any side-effects, instead, they
|
|
create a list of ``Action`` s, which are later executed.
|
|
#. ``FlowContinuation``: indicates how the state machine should proceed after a transition. It can resume to user code, throw an exception,
|
|
keep processing events or abort the flow completely.
|
|
|
|
The state machine is a **pure** function that when given an ``Event`` and an initial ``StateMachineState`` returns the next state, a list of
|
|
``Action`` s to execute, and a ``FlowContinuation`` to indicate how to proceed:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
// https://github.com/corda/corda/blob/c04a448bf391fb73f9b60cc41e8b5f0c23f81470/node/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/node/services/statemachine/transitions/TransitionResult.kt#L15
|
|
data class TransitionResult(
|
|
val newState: StateMachineState,
|
|
val actions: List<Action> = emptyList(),
|
|
val continuation: FlowContinuation = FlowContinuation.ProcessEvents
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
// https://github.com/corda/corda/blob/c04a448bf391fb73f9b60cc41e8b5f0c23f81470/node/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/node/services/statemachine/transitions/StateMachine.kt#L12
|
|
fun transition(event: Event, state: StateMachineState): TransitionResult
|
|
|
|
The top-level entry point for the state machine transitions is in ``TopLevelTransition``.
|
|
|
|
As an example let's examine message delivery. This transition will be triggered by a ``DeliverSessionMessage`` event, defined like this:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
data class DeliverSessionMessage(
|
|
val sessionMessage: ExistingSessionMessage,
|
|
override val deduplicationHandler: DeduplicationHandler,
|
|
val sender: Party
|
|
) : Event(), GeneratedByExternalEvent
|
|
|
|
The event then goes through ``TopLevelTransition``, which then passes it to ``DeliverSessionMessageTransition``. This transition inspects
|
|
the event, then does the relevant bookkeeping, updating sessions, buffering messages etc. Note that we don't do any checkpoint persistence,
|
|
and we don't return control to the user code afterwards, we simply schedule a ``DoRemainingWork`` and return a ``ProcessEvents``
|
|
continuation. This means that it's going to be the next transition that decides whether the received message is "relevant" to the current
|
|
suspension, and whether control should thus be returned to user code with the message.
|
|
|
|
FlowStateMachineImpl
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
The state machine is a pure function, so what is the "driver" of it, that actually executes the transitions and side-effects? This is what
|
|
``FlowStateMachineImpl`` is doing, which is a ``Fiber``. This class requires great care when it's modified, as the programmer must be aware
|
|
of what's on the stack, what fields get persisted as part of the ``Checkpoint``, and how the control flow is wired.
|
|
|
|
The usual way to implement state machines is to create a simple event loop that keeps popping events from a queue, and executes the
|
|
resulting transitions. With flows however this isn't so simple, because control must be returned to suspending operations. Therefore the
|
|
eventloop is split up into several smaller eventloops, executed when "we get the chance", i.e. when users call API functions. Whenever the
|
|
flow calls a Flow API function, control is handed to the flow framework, that's when we can process events, until a ``FlowContinuation``
|
|
indicates that control should be returned to user code.
|
|
|
|
There are two functions that aid the above:
|
|
|
|
#. ``FlowStateMachineImpl.processEventsUntilFlowIsResumed``: as the name suggests this is a loop that keeps popping and processing events
|
|
from the flow's event queue, until a ``FlowContinuation.Resume`` or some continuation other than ``ProcessEvents`` is returned.
|
|
#. ``FlowStateMachineImpl.processEventImmediately``: this function skips the event queue and processes an event immediately. There are
|
|
certain transitions (e.g. subflow enter/exit) that must be done this way, otherwise the event ordering can cause problems.
|
|
|
|
The two main functions that call the above are the top-level ``run``, which is the entry point of the flow, and ``suspend``, which every
|
|
blocking API call eventually calls.
|
|
|
|
Suspensions
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
Let's take a look at ``suspend``, which is the most delicate/brittle function in this class, and most probably the whole flow framework.
|
|
Examining it will reveal a lot about how flows and fibers work.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
override fun <R : Any> suspend(ioRequest: FlowIORequest<R>, maySkipCheckpoint: Boolean): R {
|
|
|
|
First off, the type signature. We pass in a ``FlowIORequest<R>``, which is an encapsulation of the IO action we're about to suspend on. It
|
|
is a sealed class with members like ``Send``/``Receive``/``ExecuteAsyncOperation``. It is serializable, and will be part of the
|
|
``Checkpoint``. In fact, it is doubly-serialized, as it is in ``FlowState`` in a typed form, but is also present in the Fiber's stack, as a
|
|
part of ``suspend``'s stack frame.
|
|
|
|
We also pass a ``maySkipCheckpoint`` boolean which if true will prevent the checkpoint from being persisted.
|
|
|
|
The function returns ``R``, but the runtime control flow achieving this "return" is quite tricky. When the Fiber suspends a
|
|
``SuspendExecution`` exception will be thrown, and when the fiber is resumed this ``suspend`` function will be re-entered, however this time
|
|
in a "different capacity", indicated by Quasar's implicitly stored method entry, which will jump to the end of the suspension. This is
|
|
repeated several times as this function has two suspension points, one of them possibly executing multiple times, as we will see later.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
val serializationContext = TransientReference(getTransientField(TransientValues::checkpointSerializationContext))
|
|
val transaction = extractThreadLocalTransaction()
|
|
|
|
These lines extract some data required for the suspension. Note that both local variables are ``TransientReference`` s, which means the
|
|
referred-to object will not be serialized as part of the stack frame. During resumption from a deserialized checkpoint these local variables
|
|
will thus be null, however at that point these objects will not be required anymore.
|
|
|
|
The first line gets the serialization context from a ``TransientValues`` datastructure, which is where all objects live that are required
|
|
for the flow's functioning but which we don't want to persist. This means all of these values must be re-initialized each time we are
|
|
restoring a flow from a persisted checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
parkAndSerialize { _, _ ->
|
|
|
|
This is the Quasar API that does the actual suspension. The passed in lambda will not be executed in the current ``suspend`` frame, but
|
|
rather is stored temporarily in the internal ``Fiber`` structure, and will be run in the outer Quasar try-catch as a "post park" action
|
|
after the catch of the ``SuspendExecution`` exception. See `Fiber.java <https://github.com/puniverse/quasar/blob/db0ac29f55bc0515023d67ab86a2178c5e6eeb94/quasar-core/src/main/java/co/paralleluniverse/fibers/Fiber.java#L804>`_ for details.
|
|
|
|
This means that within this lambda the Fiber will have already technically parked, but it hasn't yet properly yielded to the enclosing
|
|
scheduler.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
setLoggingContext()
|
|
|
|
Thread-locals are treated in a special way when Quasar suspends/resumes. Through use of `reflection and JDK-internal unsafe operations <https://github.com/puniverse/quasar/blob/db0ac29f55bc0515023d67ab86a2178c5e6eeb94/quasar-core/src/main/java/co/paralleluniverse/concurrent/util/ThreadAccess.java>`_
|
|
it accesses all ThreadLocals in the current thread and swaps them with ones stored in the Fiber data structure. In essence for each thread
|
|
that executes as a Fiber we have two sets of thread locals, one set belongs to the original "non-Quasar" thread, and the other belongs to
|
|
the Fiber. During Fiber execution the latter is active, this is swapped with the former during suspension, and swapped back during resume.
|
|
Note that during resume these thread-locals may actually be restored to a *different* thread than the original.
|
|
|
|
In the ``parkAndSerialize`` closure the Fiber is partially parked, and at this point the thread locals are already swapped out. This means
|
|
that data stored in ``ThreadLocal`` s that we still need must be re-initialized somehow. In the above case this is the logging MDC.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
// Will skip checkpoint if there are any idempotent flows in the subflow stack.
|
|
val skipPersistingCheckpoint = containsIdempotentFlows() || maySkipCheckpoint
|
|
|
|
contextTransactionOrNull = transaction.value
|
|
val event = try {
|
|
Event.Suspend(
|
|
ioRequest = ioRequest,
|
|
maySkipCheckpoint = skipPersistingCheckpoint,
|
|
fiber = this.checkpointSerialize(context = serializationContext.value)
|
|
)
|
|
} catch (exception: Exception) {
|
|
Event.Error(exception)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
A couple of things happen here. First we determine whether this suspension's subflow stack contains an ``IdempotentFlow``, to determine
|
|
whether to skip checkpoints. An idempotent flow is a subflow that's safe to replay from the beginning. This means that no checkpoint will be
|
|
persisted during its execution, as replaying from the previous checkpoint should yield the same results semantically. As an example the
|
|
notary client flow is an ``IdempotentFlow``, as notarisation is idempotent, and may be safely replayed.
|
|
|
|
We then set another thread-local, the database transaction, which was also swapped out during the park, and we made it available to the
|
|
closure temporarily using a ``TransientReference`` earlier. The database transaction is used during serialization of the fiber and
|
|
persistence of the checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
We then create the ``Suspend`` event, which includes the IO request and the serialized Fiber. If there's an exception during serialization
|
|
we create an ``Error`` event instead. Note how every condition, including error conditions are treated as "normal control flow" in the state
|
|
machine, we must be extra careful as these conditions are also exposed to the user and are part of our API guarantees.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
// We must commit the database transaction before returning from this closure otherwise Quasar may schedule
|
|
// other fibers, so we process the event immediately
|
|
val continuation = processEventImmediately(
|
|
event,
|
|
isDbTransactionOpenOnEntry = true,
|
|
isDbTransactionOpenOnExit = false
|
|
)
|
|
require(continuation == FlowContinuation.ProcessEvents){"Expected a continuation of type ${FlowContinuation.ProcessEvents}, found $continuation "}
|
|
|
|
We first process the suspension event ASAP, as we must commit the underlying database transaction before the closure ends.
|
|
|
|
.. note::
|
|
|
|
The call to ``processEventImmediately`` here reveals why the transition execution is structured in such an unintuitive way, why we are
|
|
not simply using an event loop. In an earlier iteration of the flow framework a separate thread pool was handling events and state
|
|
transitions, the state machine transitions' execution was completely offloaded, and the Fiber itself was only concerned with the
|
|
execution of user code and creation of suspension events.
|
|
|
|
However later it turned out that under any considerable load this structuring results in heavy resource leakage, and in the case of
|
|
database transactions, deadlocks. The reason for this is simply that resource management is often tied to thread lifetime, for example in
|
|
the case of serialization buffers, network buffers, database connections. Quasar multiplexes threads across many many more Fibers,
|
|
however this also explodes thread-bound resources allocated/retained, which are now Fiber-bound. This means that if we want to take
|
|
advantage of Quasar's green threading we must make sure to release any thread-local resources before yielding, otherwise we will leak.
|
|
|
|
To give a specific example, if we processed the above ``Suspend`` event in another thread or even just after this closure, the underlying
|
|
database connection would leak through a proper Fiber yield, meaning it would not be closed until the Fiber is scheduled again or until
|
|
the processing thread picks it up and closes it. In the case of database transactions we use Hikari to pool the connections, which means
|
|
that the flow framework would quickly exhaust the connection pool, which would thus cause a proper thread block of the Fiber-executing
|
|
threads trying to acquire a connection. This in turn means there would be absolutely no chance of the fibers retaining the connections
|
|
getting scheduled again, effectively deadlocking the executor threadpool.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
unpark(SERIALIZER_BLOCKER)
|
|
}
|
|
return uncheckedCast(processEventsUntilFlowIsResumed(
|
|
isDbTransactionOpenOnEntry = false,
|
|
isDbTransactionOpenOnExit = true
|
|
))
|
|
|
|
As the last step in the park closure we unpark the Fiber we are currently parking. This effectively causes an "immediate" re-enter of the
|
|
fiber, and therefore the ``suspend`` function, but this time jumping over the park and executing the next statement. Of course this re-enter
|
|
may happen much later, perhaps even on a different thread.
|
|
|
|
We then enter a mini event-loop, which also does Quasar yields, processing the flow's event queue until a transition continuation indicates
|
|
that control can be returned to user code . Practically this means that when a flow is waiting on an IO action it won't actually be blocked
|
|
in the ``parkAndSerialize`` call, but rather in this event loop, popping from the event queue.
|
|
|
|
.. note::
|
|
|
|
The ``processEvent*`` calls do explicit checks of database transaction state on entry and exit. This is because Quasar yields make
|
|
reasoning about resource usage difficult, as they detach resource lifetime from lexical scoping, or in fact any other scoping that
|
|
programmers are used to. These internal checks ensure that we are aware of which code blocks have a transaction open and which ones
|
|
don't. Incidentally these checks also seem to catch instrumentation/missing ``@Suspendable``-annotation problems.
|
|
|
|
Event processing
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
The processing of an event consists of two steps:
|
|
|
|
#. Calculating a transition. This is the pure ``StateMachineState`` + ``Event`` -> ``TransitionResult`` function.
|
|
#. Executing the transition. This is done by a ``TransitionExecutor``, which in turn uses an ``ActionExecutor`` for individual ``Action``s.
|
|
|
|
This structuring allows the introspection and interception of state machine transitions through the registering of ``TransitionExecutor``
|
|
interceptors. These interceptors are ``TransitionExecutor`` s that have access to a delegate. When they receive a new transition they can
|
|
inspect it, pass it to the delegate, and do something specific to the interceptor.
|
|
|
|
For example checkpoint deserializability is checked by such an `interceptor <https://github.com/corda/corda/blob/76d738c4529fd7bdfabcfd1b61d500f9259978f7/node/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/node/services/statemachine/interceptors/FiberDeserializationCheckingInterceptor.kt#L18>`_.
|
|
It inspects a transition, and if it contains a Fiber checkpoint then it checks whether it's deserializable in a separate thread.
|
|
|
|
The transition calculation is done in the ``net.corda.node.services.statemachine.transitions`` package, the top-level entry point being
|
|
``TopLevelTransition``. There is a ``TransitionBuilder`` helper that makes the transition definitions a bit more readable. It contains a
|
|
``currentState`` field that may be updated with new ``StateMachineState`` instances as the event is being processed, and has some helper
|
|
functions for common functionality, for example for erroring the state machine with some error condition.
|
|
|
|
Here are a couple of highlighted transitions:
|
|
|
|
Suspend
|
|
^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Handling of ``Event.Suspend`` is quite straightforward and is done `here <https://github.com/corda/corda/blob/26855967989557e4c078bb08dd528231d30fad8b/node/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/node/services/statemachine/transitions/TopLevelTransition.kt#L143>`_.
|
|
We take the serialized ``Fiber`` and the IO request and create a new checkpoint, then depending on whether we should persist or not we
|
|
either simply commit the database transaction and schedule a ``DoRemainingWork`` (to be explained later), or we persist the checkpoint, run
|
|
the ``DeduplicationHandler`` inside-tx hooks, commit, then run the after-tx hooks, and schedule a ``DoRemainingWork``.
|
|
|
|
Every checkpoint persistence implies the above steps, in this specific order.
|
|
|
|
DoRemainingWork
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
This is a generic event that simply tells the state machine: inspect your current state, and decide what to do, if anything. Using this
|
|
event we can break down transitions into a <modify state> and <inspect and do stuff> transition, which compose well with other transitions,
|
|
as we don't need to add special cases everywhere in the state machine.
|
|
|
|
As an example take error propagation. When a flow errors it's put into an "errored" state, and it's waiting for further instructions. One
|
|
possibility is the triggering of error propagation through the scheduling of ``Event.StartErrorPropagation``. Note how the handling of this
|
|
event simply does the following:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
currentState = currentState.copy(
|
|
checkpoint = currentState.checkpoint.copy(
|
|
errorState = errorState.copy(propagating = true)
|
|
)
|
|
)
|
|
actions.add(Action.ScheduleEvent(Event.DoRemainingWork))
|
|
|
|
It marks the error state as ``propagating = true`` and schedules a ``DoRemainingWork``. The processing of that event in turn will detect
|
|
that we are errored and propagating, and there are some errors that haven't been propagated yet. It then propagates those errors and updates
|
|
the "propagated index" to indicate all errors have been dealt with. Subsequent ``DoRemainingWork``s will thus do nothing. However, in case
|
|
some other error condition or external event adds another error to the flow, we would automatically propagate that too, we don't need to
|
|
write a special case for it.
|
|
|
|
Most of the state machine logic is therefore about the handling ``DoRemainingWork``. Another example is resumptions due to an IO request
|
|
completing in some way. ``DoRemainingWork`` checks whether we are currently waiting for something to complete e.g. a
|
|
``FlowIORequest.Receive``. It then checks whether the state contains enough data to complete the action, in the receive case this means
|
|
checking the relevant sessions for buffered messages, and seeing whether those messages are sufficient to resume the flow with.
|
|
|
|
Transition execution
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Once the transition has been calculated the transition is passed to the flow's ``TransitionExecutor``. The main executor is
|
|
``TransitionExecutorImpl``, which executes the transition's ``Action`` s, and handles errors by manually erroring the flow's state. This is
|
|
also when transition interceptors are triggered.
|
|
|
|
Errors
|
|
^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
An error can manifest as either the whole flow erroring, or a specific session erroring. The former means that the whole flow is blocked
|
|
from resumption, and it will end up in the flow hospital. A session erroring blocks only that specific session. Any interaction with this
|
|
session will in turn error the flow. Session errors are created by a remote party propagating an error to our flow.
|
|
|
|
How to modify the state machine
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Let's say we wanted to change the session messaging protocol. How would we go about changing the state machine?
|
|
|
|
The session logic is defined by
|
|
|
|
#. Session message definitions, see the ``SessionMessage`` sealed class.
|
|
#. Session state definitions, see the ``SessionState`` sealed class. This is the state we store per established/to-be-established session
|
|
with a ``Party``.
|
|
#. Session state transitions, see ``DeliverSessionMessageTransition``.
|
|
|
|
Let's say we wanted to add more handshake steps. To do this we need to add new types of ``SessionMessage`` s as required, new
|
|
``SessionState`` s, and cases to handle state transitions in ``DeliverSessionMessageTransition``. This handles the receive path, to handle
|
|
send paths ``StartedFlowTransition.sendTransition`` needs modifying, this is the transition triggered when the flow suspends on a send.
|
|
|
|
Atomicity
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
DeduplicationHandler
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
The flow framework guarantees atomicity of processing incoming events. This means that a flow or the node may be stopped at any time, even
|
|
during processing of an event and on restart the node will reconstruct the correct state of the flows and will proceed as if nothing
|
|
happened.
|
|
|
|
To do this each external event is given two hooks, one inside the database transaction committing the next checkpoint, and one after the
|
|
commit, to enable implementation of exactly-once delivery on top of at-least-once. These hooks can be found on the ``DeduplicationHandler``
|
|
interface:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
* This handler is used to implement exactly-once delivery of an external event on top of an at-least-once delivery. This is done
|
|
* using two hooks that are called from the event processor, one called from the database transaction committing the
|
|
* side-effect caused by the external event, and another one called after the transaction has committed successfully.
|
|
*
|
|
* For example for messaging we can use [insideDatabaseTransaction] to store the message's unique ID for later
|
|
* deduplication, and [afterDatabaseTransaction] to acknowledge the message and stop retries.
|
|
*
|
|
* We also use this for exactly-once start of a scheduled flow, [insideDatabaseTransaction] is used to remove the
|
|
* to-be-scheduled state of the flow, [afterDatabaseTransaction] is used for cleanup of in-memory bookkeeping.
|
|
*
|
|
* It holds a reference back to the causing external event.
|
|
*/
|
|
interface DeduplicationHandler {
|
|
/**
|
|
* This will be run inside a database transaction that commits the side-effect of the event, allowing the
|
|
* implementor to persist the event delivery fact atomically with the side-effect.
|
|
*/
|
|
fun insideDatabaseTransaction()
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
* This will be run strictly after the side-effect has been committed successfully and may be used for
|
|
* cleanup/acknowledgement/stopping of retries.
|
|
*/
|
|
fun afterDatabaseTransaction()
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
* The external event for which we are trying to reduce from at-least-once delivery to exactly-once.
|
|
*/
|
|
val externalCause: ExternalEvent
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Let's take message delivery as an example. From the flow framework's perspective we are assuming at least once delivery, and in order
|
|
delivery. When a message is received a corresponding ``DeduplicationHandler`` is created. The hook inside the database transaction persists
|
|
the message ID, and the hook after acknowledges it, stopping potential retries. If the node crashes before the transaction commits then the
|
|
message will be redelivered, and if it crashes after it will be deduplicated based on the ID table.
|
|
|
|
We also use this for deduplicating scheduled flow starts, the inside hook removes the scheduled StateRef, and the after hook cleans up
|
|
in-memory bookkeeping.
|
|
|
|
We could also use this for deduplicating RPC flow starts. A deduplication ID would be generated (and potentially stored) on the client,
|
|
persisted on the node in the inside-tx hook, and the start would be acked afterwards, removing the ID from the client (and stopping
|
|
retries).
|
|
|
|
Internally a list of pending ``DeduplicationHandler`` s is accumulated in the state machine in ``StateMachineState``. When the next
|
|
checkpoint is persisted the corresponding ``insideDatabaseTranscation`` hooks are run, and once the checkpoint is committed the
|
|
``afterDatabaseTransaction`` hooks are run.
|
|
|
|
In-memory flow retries
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Tracking of these handlers also allows us to do in-memory retries of flows. To do this we need to re-create the flow from the last
|
|
checkpoint and retry external events internally. For every flow we have two lists of such "events", one is the yet-unprocessed event queue
|
|
of the flow, and one is the already processed but still pending list of ``DeduplicationHandler`` s. The concatenation of these events gives
|
|
us a handle on the list of events relevant to the flow since the last persisted checkpoint, so we just need to re-process these events. All
|
|
of these events go through the ``StateMachineManager``, which is where the retry is handled too.
|
|
|
|
.. note::
|
|
|
|
There may be cases where there is no checkpoint yet for a flow that needs retrying. In this case the re-processing of the events is
|
|
sufficient, as one of those events will be the starting of the flow, or a delivery of a flow initiation message. So it all works out!
|
|
|
|
Deduplication
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Full message deduplication is more complex, what we've discussed so far only dealt with the state machine bits.
|
|
|
|
When we receive a message from Artemis it is eventually handled by
|
|
``P2PMessagingClient.deliver``, which consults the ``P2PDeduplicator`` class to determine whether the message is a duplicate.
|
|
``P2PDeduplicator`` holds two data structures:
|
|
|
|
#. ``processedMessages``: the persisted message ID table. Any message ID in this table must have been committed together with a checkpoint
|
|
that includes the side-effects caused by the message.
|
|
#. ``beingProcessedMessages``: an in-memory map holding the message IDs until they are being processed and committed.
|
|
|
|
These two data structures correspond to the two ``DeduplicationHandler`` hooks of each message. ``insideDatabaseTransaction`` adds to the
|
|
``processedMessages`` map, ``afterDatabaseTransaction`` removes from ``beingProcessedMessages``
|
|
|
|
The indirection through the in-memory map is needed because Artemis may redeliver unacked messages in certain situations, and at that point
|
|
the message may still be "in-flight", i.e. the ID may not be committed yet.
|
|
|
|
If the message isn't a duplicate then it's put into ``beingProcessedMessages`` and forwarded to the state machine manager, which then
|
|
forwards it to the right flow or constructs one if this is an initiating message. When the next checkpoint of the relevant flow is persisted
|
|
the message is "finalized" as discussed, using its ``DeduplicationHandler``.
|
|
|
|
Flow hospital
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
The flow hospital is a place where errored flows end up. This is done using an interceptor that detects error transitions and notifies the
|
|
hospital.
|
|
|
|
The hospital can decide what to do with the flow: restart it from the last persisted checkpoint using an in-memory retry, keep the flow
|
|
around pending either manual intervention or a restart of the node (in which case it will be retried from the last persisted checkpoint on
|
|
start), or trigger error propagation, which makes the error permanent and notifies other parties the flow has sessions with of the failure.
|
|
|
|
This is where we can do special logic to handle certain error conditions like notary failures in a specific way e.g. by retrying.
|