Although no compiler appears to complain about it, these are
not valid for c++11.
(http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/aggregate_initialization says they're c++20)
The structure is defined as:
struct sched_param {
int sched_priority;
};
So passing 0 for the first field has the same effect.
Nowhere in the man page of `pthread_setschedparam` it is mentioned that
`0` is a valid value. The example uses `pthread_self()`, so should we.
(noticed by Anthony Towns)
77a733a99 [tests] Add additional unit tests for -nofoo edge cases (Anthony Towns)
af173c2be [tests] Check GetChainName works with config entries (Anthony Towns)
fa27f1c23 [tests] Add unit tests for ReadConfigStream (Anthony Towns)
087c5d204 ReadConfigStream: assume the stream is good (Anthony Towns)
6d5815aad Separate out ReadConfigStream from ReadConfigFile (Anthony Towns)
834d30341 [tests] Add unit tests for GetChainName (Anthony Towns)
11b6b5b86 Move ChainNameFromCommandLine into ArgsManager and rename to GetChainName (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
This does a bit of refactoring of the configuration handling code in order to add additional tests to make adding support for [test]/[regtest] sections in the config file in #11862 easier. Should not cause any behaviour changes.
Tree-SHA512: 8d2ce1449fc180de03414e7e569d1a21ba1e9f6564e13d3faf3961f710adc725fa0d4ab49b89ebd2baa11ea36ac5018377f693a84037d386a8b8697c9d6db3e9
d54874d Set SCHED_BATCH priority on the loadblk thread. (Evan Klitzke)
Pull request description:
Today I came across #10271, and while reading the discussion #6358 was linked to. Linux systems have a `SCHED_BATCH` scheduler priority that is useful for threads like loadblk. You can find the full details at [sched(7)](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/sched.7.html), but I'll quote the relevant part of the man page below:
> ...this policy will cause the scheduler to always assume that the thread is
CPU-intensive. Consequently, the scheduler will apply a small scheduling penalty
with respect to wakeup behavior, so that this thread is mildly disfavored in
scheduling decisions.
>
> This policy is useful for workloads that are noninteractive, but do not want to
lower their nice value, and for workloads that want a deterministic scheduling
policy without interactivity causing extra preemptions (between the workload's
tasks).
I think this change is useful independently of #10271 and irrespective of whether that change is merged. Under normal operation the loadblk thread will just import `mempool.dat`. However, if Bitcoin is started with `-reindex` or `-reindex-chainstate` this thread will use a great deal of CPU while it rebuilds the chainstate database (and the block database in the case of `-reindex`). By setting `SCHED_BATCH` this thread is less likely to interfere with interactive tasks (e.g. the user's web browser, text editor, etc.).
I'm leaving the nice value unchanged (which also affects scheduling decisions) because I think that's better set by the user. Likewise I'm not using [ioprio_set(2)](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/ioprio_set.2.html) because it can cause the thread to become completely I/O starved (and knowledgeable users can use `ionice(1)` anyway).
Tree-SHA512: ea8f7d3921ed5708948809da771345cdc33efd7ba3323e9dfec07a25bc21e8612e2676f9c178e2710c7bc437e8c9cafc5e0463613688fea5699b6e8e2fec6cff
This commit adds tracking for negated arguments. This change will be used in a
future commit that allows disabling the debug.log file using -nodebuglogfile.
a192636 -blocksdir: keep blockindex leveldb database in datadir (Jonas Schnelli)
f38e4fd QA: Add -blocksdir test (Jonas Schnelli)
386a6b6 Allow to optional specify the directory for the blocks storage (Jonas Schnelli)
Pull request description:
Since the actual block files taking up more and more space, it may be desirable to have them stored in a different location then the data directory (use case: SSD for chainstate, etc., HD for blocks).
This PR adds a `-blocksdir` option that allows one to keep the blockfiles and the blockindex external from the data directory (instead of creating symlinks).
I fist had an option to keep the blockindex within the datadir, but seems to make no sense since accessing the index will (always) lead to access (r/w) the block files.
Tree-SHA512: f8b9e1a681679eac25076dc30e45e6e12d4b2d9ac4be907cbea928a75af081dbcb0f1dd3e97169ab975f73d0bd15824c00c2a34638f3b284b39017171fce2409
While reading another PR I saw a mention of #6358. The use case for
SCHED_BATCH is to hint to the kernel that the thread is running a
non-interactive workload that consumes a lot of CPU time. This is
helpful on desktop machines where the loadblk thread can interfere with
interactive applications. More details can be found in the sched(7) man
page.
8674e74 Provide relevant error message if datadir is not writable. (murrayn)
Pull request description:
If the --datadir exists, but is not writable, the current error message on startup is 'Cannot obtain a lock on data directory foo. Bitcoin Core is probably already running.' This is misleading.
I believe this PR addresses #11668, although the issue is not Windows-specific.
Tree-SHA512: 10cbbaea433072aee4fb3e8938a72073c7a5c841f7a7685c9e12549c322b2925c7d34bac254ac33021b23132bfc352c058712bc9542298cf86f8fd9757f528b2
7ef46d063a Remove redundant includes. Conform to header include guidelines. (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
From the header include guidelines ([developer-notes.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#source-code-organization)):
> "One exception is that a `.cpp` file does not need to re-include the includes already included in its corresponding `.h` file."
Covered in this PR:
* `rpc/util.h` includes `pubkey.h` + `utilstrencodings.h`. `rpc/util.cpp` includes `rpc/util.h`.
* `util.h` includes `fs.h`. `util.cpp` includes `util.h`.
Tree-SHA512: a38d9ecefd8165ad151c1ffde52cfbac968526c49db2080988bf6e6a3daa2ebeceb34d08f817e275edf7c650bf3155de01369bfb352522f8e0ae136b2289b194
* Z is the zone designator for the zero UTC offset.
* T is the delimiter used to separate date and time.
This makes it clear for the end-user that the date/time logged is
specified in UTC and not in the local time zone.
937bf4335 Use std:🧵:hardware_concurrency, instead of Boost, to determine available cores (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Following discussion on IRC about replacing Boost usage for detecting available system cores, I've opened this to collect some benchmarks + further discussion.
The current method for detecting available cores was introduced in #6361.
Recap of the IRC chat:
```
21:14:08 fanquake: Since we seem to be giving Boost removal a good shot for 0.15, does anyone have suggestions for replacing GetNumCores?
21:14:26 fanquake: There is std:🧵:hardware_concurrency(), but that seems to count virtual cores, which I don't think we want.
21:14:51 BlueMatt: fanquake: I doubt we'll do boost removal for 0.15
21:14:58 BlueMatt: shit like BOOST_FOREACH, sure
21:15:07 BlueMatt: but all of boost? doubtful, there are still things we need
21:16:36 fanquake: Yea sorry, not the whole lot, but we can remove a decent chunk. Just looking into what else needs to be done to replace some of the less involved Boost usage.
21:16:43 BlueMatt: fair
21:17:14 wumpus: yes, it makes sense to plan ahead a bit, without immediately doing it
21:18:12 wumpus: right, don't count virtual cores, that used to be the case but it makes no sense for our usage
21:19:15 wumpus: it'd create a swarm of threads overwhelming any machine with hyperthreading (+accompanying thread stack overhead), for script validation, and there was no gain at all for that
21:20:03 sipa: BlueMatt: don't worry, there is no hurry
21:59:10 morcos: wumpus: i don't think that is correct
21:59:24 morcos: suppose you have 4 cores (8 virtual cores)
21:59:24 wumpus: fanquake: indeed seems that std has no equivalent to physical_concurrency, on any standard. That's annoying as it is non-trivial to implement
21:59:35 morcos: i think running par=8 (if it let you) would be notably faster
21:59:59 morcos: jeremyrubin and i discussed this at length a while back... i think i commented about it on irc at the time
22:00:21 wumpus: morcos: I think the conclusion at the time was that it made no difference, but sure would make sense to benchmark
22:00:39 morcos: perhaps historical testing on the virtual vs actual cores was polluted by concurrency issues that have now improved
22:00:47 wumpus: I think there are not more ALUs, so there is not really a point in having more threads
22:01:40 wumpus: hyperthreads are basically just a stored register state right?
22:02:23 sipa: wumpus: yes but it helps the scheduler
22:02:27 wumpus: in which case the only speedup using "number of cores" threads would give you is, possibly, excluding other software from running on the cores on the same time
22:02:37 morcos: well this is where i get out of my depth
22:02:50 sipa: if one of the threads is waiting on a read from ram, the other can use the arithmetic unit for example
22:02:54 morcos: wumpus: i'm pretty sure though that the speed up is considerably more than what you might expect from that
22:02:59 wumpus: sipa: ok, I back down, I didn't want to argue this at all
22:03:35 morcos: the reason i haven't tested it myself, is the machine i usually use has 16 cores... so not easy due to remaining concurrency issues to get much more speedup
22:03:36 wumpus: I'm fine with restoring it to number of virtual threads if that's faster
22:03:54 morcos: we should have somene with 4 cores (and  actually test it though, i agree
22:03:58 sipa: i would expect (but we should benchmark...) that if 8 scriot validation threads instead of 4 on a quadcore hyperthreading is not faster, it's due to lock contention
22:04:20 morcos: sipa: yeah thats my point, i think lock contention isn't that bad with 8 now
22:04:22 wumpus: on 64-bit systems the additional thread overhead wouldn't be important at least
22:04:23 gmaxwell: I previously benchmarked, a long time ago, it was faster.
22:04:33 gmaxwell: (to use the HT core count)
22:04:44 wumpus: why was this changed at all then?
22:04:47 wumpus: I'm confused
22:05:04 sipa: good question!
22:05:06 gmaxwell: I had no idea we changed it.
22:05:25 wumpus: sigh 
22:05:54 gmaxwell: What PR changed it?
22:06:51 gmaxwell: In any case, on 32-bit it's probably a good tradeoff... the extra ram overhead is worth avoiding.
22:07:22 wumpus: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6361
22:07:28 gmaxwell: PR 6461 btw.
22:07:37 gmaxwell: er lol at least you got it right.
22:07:45 wumpus: the complaint was that systems became unsuably slow when using that many thread
22:07:51 wumpus: so at least I got one thing right, woohoo
22:07:55 sipa: seems i even acked it!
22:07:57 BlueMatt: wumpus: there are more alus
22:08:38 BlueMatt: but we need to improve lock contention first
22:08:40 morcos: anywya, i think in the past the lock contention made 8 threads regardless of cores a bit dicey.. now that is much better (although more still to be done)
22:09:01 BlueMatt: or we can just merge #10192, thats fee
22:09:04 gribble: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10192 | Cache full script execution results in addition to signatures by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10192 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
22:09:11 BlueMatt: s/fee/free/
22:09:21 morcos: no, we do not need to improve lock contention first. but we should probably do that before we increase the max beyond 16
22:09:26 BlueMatt: then we can toss concurrency issues out the window and get more speedup anyway
22:09:35 gmaxwell: wumpus: yea, well in QT I thought we also diminished the count by 1 or something? but yes, if the motivation was to reduce how heavily the machine was used, thats fair.
22:09:56 sipa: the benefit of using HT cores is certainly not a factor 2
22:09:58 wumpus: gmaxwell: for the default I think this makes a lot of sense, yes
22:10:10 gmaxwell: morcos: right now on my 24/28 physical core hosts going beyond 16 still reduces performance.
22:10:11 wumpus: gmaxwell: do we also restrict the maximum par using this? that'd make less sense
22:10:51 wumpus: if someone *wants* to use the virtual cores they should be able to by setting -par=
22:10:51 sipa: *flies to US*
22:10:52 BlueMatt: sipa: sure, but the shared cache helps us get more out of it than some others, as morcos points out
22:11:30 BlueMatt: (because it means our thread contention issues are less)
22:12:05 morcos: gmaxwell: yeah i've been bogged down in fee estimation as well (and the rest of life) for a while now.. otherwise i would have put more effort into jeremy's checkqueue
22:12:36 BlueMatt: morcos: heh, well now you can do other stuff while the rest of us get bogged down in understanding fee estimation enough to review it 
22:12:37 wumpus: [to answer my own question: no, the limit for par is MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS, or 16]
22:12:54 morcos: but to me optimizing for more than 16 cores is pretty valuable as miners could use beefy machines and be less concerned by block validation time
22:14:38 BlueMatt: morcos: i think you may be surprised by the number of mining pools that are on VPSes that do not have 16 cores 
22:15:34 gmaxwell: I assume right now most of the time block validation is bogged in the parts that are not as concurrent. simple because caching makes the concurrent parts so fast. (and soon to hopefully increase with bluematt's patch)
22:17:55 gmaxwell: improving sha2 speed, or transaction malloc overhead are probably bigger wins now for connection at the tip than parallelism beyond 16 (though I'd like that too).
22:18:21 BlueMatt: sha2 speed is big
22:18:27 morcos: yeah lots of things to do actually...
22:18:57 gmaxwell: BlueMatt: might be a tiny bit less big if we didn't hash the block header 8 times for every block. 
22:21:27 BlueMatt: ehh, probably, but I'm less rushed there
22:21:43 BlueMatt: my new cache thing is about to add a bunch of hashing
22:21:50 BlueMatt: 1 sha round per tx
22:22:25 BlueMatt: and sigcache is obviously a ton
```
Tree-SHA512: a594430e2a77d8cc741ea8c664a2867b1e1693e5050a4bbc8511e8d66a2bffe241a9965f6dff1e7fbb99f21dd1fdeb95b826365da8bd8f9fab2d0ffd80d5059c
From the header include guidelines (developer-notes.md):
"One exception is that a `.cpp` file does not need to re-include the
includes already included in its corresponding `.h` file."
* rpc/util.h includes pubkey.h + utilstrencodings.h. rpc/util.cpp includes rpc/util.h.
* util.h includes fs.h. util.cpp includes util.h.
This commit fixes problems with calling LockDirectory multiple times on
the same directory, or from multiple threads. It also fixes the build on
OpenBSD.
- Wrap the boost::interprocess::file_lock in a std::unique_ptr inside
the map that keeps track of per-directory locks. This fixes a build
issue with the clang 4.0.0+boost-1.58.0p8 version combo on OpenBSD
6.2, and should have no observable effect otherwise.
- Protect the locks map using a mutex.
- Make sure that only locks that are successfully acquired are inserted
in the map.
- Open the lock file for appending only if we know we don't have the
lock yet - The `FILE* file = fsbridge::fopen(pathLockFile, "a");`
wipes the 'we own this lock' administration, likely because it opens
a new fd for the locked file then closes it.
a720b92 Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included.
Example case:
* `addrdb.cpp` includes `addrdb.h` and `fs.h`
* `addrdb.h` includes `fs.h`
Then remove the direct inclusion of `fs.h` in `addrman.cpp` and rely on the indirect inclusion of `fs.h` via the included `addrdb.h`.
In line with the header include guideline (see #10575).
Tree-SHA512: 8704b9de3011a4c234db336a39f7d2c139e741cf0f7aef08a5d3e05197e1e18286b863fdab25ae9638af4ff86b3d52e5cab9eed66bfa2476063aa5c79f9b0346
This patch adds an option to configure the name and/or directory of the
debug log.
The user can specify either a relative path, in which case the path
is relative to the data directory. They can also specify an absolute
path to put the log anywhere else in the file system.
c60c49b Improve help text and behavior of RPC-logging (Akio Nakamura)
Pull request description:
1. It is allowed `libevent` logging to be updated during runtime,
but still described that restriction in the help text.
So we delete these text.
2. Add a descrption about the evaluation order of `<include>` and
`<exclude>` to clarify how debug loggig categories to be set.
3. Add a description about the available logging category `"all"`
which is not explained.
4. Add `"optional"` to the help text of `<include>` and `<exclude>`.
5. Add missing new lines before `"Argument:"`.
6. `"0"`,`"1"` are allowed in both array of `<include>` and `<exclude>`.
`"0"` is **ignored** and `"1"` is treated **same as** `"all"`.
It is confusing, so forbid them.
7. It always returns all logging categories with status.
Fix the help text to match this behavior.
Tree-SHA512: c2142da1a9bf714af8ebc38ac0d82394e2073fc0bd56f136372e3db7b2af3b6746f8d6b0241fe66c1698c208c124deb076be83f07dec0d0a180ad150593af415
A) The changes in behavior are as follows:
1. Introduce logging category "none" as alias of "0" for
both RPC-logging and bitcoind "-debug" parameter.
2. Same as "0" is given to argument of "-debug",
if "none" or "0" is given to <include>, all other given logging
categories are ignored. The same is true for <exclude>.
(Before this PR, "0" was accepted but just be ignored itself.)
B) The changes in the help text are as follows:
1. Add a descrption about the evaluation order of <include> and
<exclude> to clarify how debug loggig categories to be set.
2. Delete text that describe restriction about libevent because
it's already allowed libevent logging to be updated during runtime.
3. Add a description for category "all", "1", "none" and "0".
4. Add "optional" to the help text of <include> and <exclude>.
5. Add missing new lines before "Argument:".
6. This RPC always returns all logging categories with status.
Fix the help text to match this behavior.
cffe85f Skip sys::system(...) call in case of empty command (practicalswift)
6fb8f5f Check that -blocknotify command is non-empty before executing (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Check that `-blocknotify` command is non-empty before executing.
To make the `BlockNotifyCallback(...)` (`-blocknotify`) behaviour consistent with that of:
* `AlertNotify(...)` (`-alertnotify`)
* `AddToWallet(...)` (`-walletnotify`)
Tree-SHA512: 18272166793a5a8b9cc2a727bfbcea53d38c329a55bc975c02db601329d608a61c20e026ce4b616193ecd3810dca4d3e2cb3bf773898a51872008a8dba96763e
a622a1768 Fix constness of ArgsManager methods (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Make `cs_args` mutex mutable so that const methods can acquire it.
There's also tiny performance improvement by avoiding two map lookups when retrieving an argument value.
Tree-SHA512: ece58469745f2743b4b643242b51889a3d9c5b76492ed70bb74d4e5b378fff59da79fc129e499da779bf9f488c9435dda17ad1f3a804c1c30f56af422389e8bd
Use case: TryCreateDirectory(GetDataDir() / "blocks" / "index") would
fail if the blocks directory was not explicitly created before.
The line that did so was in a weird location and could be removed as a
result.
c237bd7 wallet: Update formatting (Luke Dashjr)
9cbe8c8 wallet: Forbid -salvagewallet, -zapwallettxes, and -upgradewallet with multiple wallets (Luke Dashjr)
a2a5f3f wallet: Base backup filenames on original wallet filename (Luke Dashjr)
b823a4c wallet: Include actual backup filename in recovery warning message (Luke Dashjr)
84dcb45 Bugfix: wallet: Fix warningStr, errorStr argument order (Luke Dashjr)
008c360 Wallet: Move multiwallet sanity checks to CWallet::Verify, and do other checks on all wallets (Luke Dashjr)
0f08575 Wallet: Support loading multiple wallets if -wallet used more than once (Luke Dashjr)
b124cf0 Wallet: Replace pwalletMain with a vector of wallet pointers (Luke Dashjr)
19b3648 CWalletDB: Store the update counter per wallet (Luke Dashjr)
74e8738 Bugfix: ForceSetArg should replace entr(ies) in mapMultiArgs, not append (Luke Dashjr)
23fb9ad wallet: Move nAccountingEntryNumber from static/global to CWallet (Luke Dashjr)
9d15d55 Bugfix: wallet: Increment "update counter" when modifying account stuff (Luke Dashjr)
f28eb80 Bugfix: wallet: Increment "update counter" only after actually making the applicable db changes to avoid potential races (Luke Dashjr)
Tree-SHA512: 23f5dda58477307bc07997010740f1dc729164cdddefd2f9a2c9c7a877111eb1516d3e2ad4f9b104621f0b7f17369c69fcef13d28b85cb6c01d35f09a8845f23
761392d [logging] log system time and mock time (John Newbery)
Tree-SHA512: 0a4b3ad74bcac201be490fe12e4b45adeabc39030ac46f40e1aeb2a20b2f3963e4468e65798d8aaeca1818759cab55ff2b2aa214500aa11571492c3301dd31c1
