refactor: Revert "perf: Remove unnecessary caches (#5439)"#7359
Open
bthomee wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
refactor: Revert "perf: Remove unnecessary caches (#5439)"#7359bthomee wants to merge 3 commits into
bthomee wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
![xrplf-ai-reviewer[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67929741?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR reverts the cache-removal work from #5439 by reintroducing NodeStore caching and related maintenance hooks, motivated by a suspected regression where node data could be dropped before being persisted (leading to SHAMapMissingNode).
Changes:
- Reintroduces a
TaggedCacheinsideDatabaseNodeImp(including negative-cache “Dummy” entries) and adds aDatabase::sweep()hook. - Wires cache sweeping into
ApplicationImp::doSweep()and restores SHAMapStore’s interactions with NodeFamily caches during rotation/online-delete. - Documents new
[node_db]cache settings and updates tests to supply defaults.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 8 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/xrpld/app/misc/SHAMapStoreImp.h | Stores pointers to NodeFamily caches for reuse during online delete rotation. |
| src/xrpld/app/misc/SHAMapStoreImp.cpp | Injects default NodeStore cache settings and uses cached pointers for cache maintenance. |
| src/xrpld/app/main/Application.cpp | Adds NodeStore sweep call to periodic sweeping. |
| src/test/app/SHAMapStore_test.cpp | Mirrors NodeStore config defaulting for rotating DB tests. |
| src/libxrpl/nodestore/DatabaseRotatingImp.cpp | Implements sweep() (no-op) for rotating NodeStore. |
| src/libxrpl/nodestore/DatabaseNodeImp.cpp | Restores cache use in store/fetch paths and adds sweep support. |
| include/xrpl/nodestore/detail/DatabaseRotatingImp.h | Declares sweep() override for rotating DB implementation. |
| include/xrpl/nodestore/detail/DatabaseNodeImp.h | Initializes optional TaggedCache from config and declares sweep(). |
| include/xrpl/nodestore/Database.h | Adds sweep() to the Database interface. |
| cfg/xrpld-example.cfg | Documents cache_size / cache_age in [node_db]. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Comment on lines
+41
to
+49
| if (cacheSize != 0 || cacheAge != 0) | ||
| { | ||
| cache_ = std::make_shared<TaggedCache<uint256, NodeObject>>( | ||
| "DatabaseNodeImp", | ||
| cacheSize.value_or(0), | ||
| std::chrono::minutes(cacheAge.value_or(0)), | ||
| stopwatch(), | ||
| j); | ||
| } |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vlntb I'll make this change - I don't think we should do a pure revert when there are clear issues that can be easily fixed.
Comment on lines
+104
to
+105
| case Status::NotFound: | ||
| break; |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vlntb this seems like good feedback and worth implementing.
Also, how often would Status::Ok and nodeObject == nullptr (see the switch-case above)? I wonder if it even makes sense to keep the inserting of a dummy value there.
Comment on lines
+169
to
+182
| // Provide default values. | ||
| if (!nscfg.exists("cache_size")) | ||
| { | ||
| nscfg.set( | ||
| "cache_size", | ||
| std::to_string(app_.config().getValueFor(SizedItem::TreeCacheSize, std::nullopt))); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!nscfg.exists("cache_age")) | ||
| { | ||
| nscfg.set( | ||
| "cache_age", | ||
| std::to_string(app_.config().getValueFor(SizedItem::TreeCacheAge, std::nullopt))); | ||
| } |
Comment on lines
+525
to
+540
| // Provide default values. | ||
| if (!nscfg.exists("cache_size")) | ||
| { | ||
| nscfg.set( | ||
| "cache_size", | ||
| std::to_string( | ||
| env.app().config().getValueFor(SizedItem::TreeCacheSize, std::nullopt))); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!nscfg.exists("cache_age")) | ||
| { | ||
| nscfg.set( | ||
| "cache_age", | ||
| std::to_string( | ||
| env.app().config().getValueFor(SizedItem::TreeCacheAge, std::nullopt))); | ||
| } |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #7359 +/- ##
=========================================
- Coverage 82.4% 82.4% -0.0%
=========================================
Files 1011 1011
Lines 76477 76530 +53
Branches 7322 7319 -3
=========================================
+ Hits 63005 63037 +32
- Misses 13472 13493 +21
... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
vlntb
approved these changes
May 29, 2026
Contributor
vlntb
left a comment
vlntb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I compared the original PR with the reverted changes. Everything matches.
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
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.
High Level Overview of Change
This change reverts #5439.
Context of Change
We have identified a potential regression introduced by #5439, whereby the data passed to the node store (bypassing the removed cache) in certain situations could be dropped without ever being written, in turn resulting in a
SHAMapMissingNodeerror. Although this has not been definitely confirmed that this change actually causes the issue, it is very plausible - therefore the PR is being reverted out of an abundance of caution.