-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[CWS] Change tags retrieval retry logic #31606
Conversation
e93a074
to
65c54e3
Compare
65c54e3
to
70c8866
Compare
d0d8eaa
to
d741a8d
Compare
// check if the workload tags were found or if it was deleted | ||
if !workload.Deleted.Load() && needsTagsResolution(workload) { | ||
// this is an alive cgroup, try to resolve its tags now | ||
if err := t.fetchTags(workload); err != nil || needsTagsResolution(workload) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is the || needsTagsResolution(workload)
needed here ? already checked line 83 no ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it is. It was part of the previous code already. It seems that fetchTags may return an empty list of tags so we retry.
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=50269159 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 8adbcab |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: a4a88c6 Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +9.10 | [+5.06, +13.15] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.59 | [-0.10, +1.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.17 | [+0.04, +0.29] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.71, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.76, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.69, +0.75] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.10, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.64, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.17 | [-0.63, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.32 | [-1.10, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.65 | [-0.72, -0.57] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | -0.67 | [-4.12, +2.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.75 | [-0.80, -0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.83 | [-1.55, -0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.93 | [-4.86, +1.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -2.25 | [-2.39, -2.11] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
WORKLOAD: | ||
for { | ||
select { | ||
case workload := <-t.workloadsWithoutTags: | ||
t.checkTags(workload) | ||
default: | ||
break WORKLOAD | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I understand this correctly, it may leads to an infinite loop: if we iterate on the chan and call checkTags, and if a workload can't be resolved it will be pushed back on the same chan .. and will be resolved again in the same tick?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean not an infinite loop, but it defeat the purpose of capped retries
d741a8d
to
8c3e253
Compare
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
/remove |
Devflow running:
|
8c3e253
to
8adbcab
Compare
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Change the logic that retries fetching the tags of a container
when first resolution fails.
Motivation
When we fail to resolve tags, we push the workload back into a queue
so that we retry later. But:
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes