Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024

Conversation

lebauce
Copy link
Contributor

@lebauce lebauce commented Nov 29, 2024

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:

  • we retry fetching tags for only one workload, every 10 seconds
  • we don't check that the cgroup is still alive
  • there is no limit on the number of retries. So if the tagger, for some reasons, fails to resolve the tags for a container, we'll try to resolve the tags for this container forever, filling the queue and potentially forbidding other workloads to be put into the queue.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@lebauce lebauce added this to the 7.62.0 milestone Nov 29, 2024
@lebauce lebauce requested a review from a team as a code owner November 29, 2024 12:28
@github-actions github-actions bot added component/system-probe short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Nov 29, 2024
@lebauce lebauce force-pushed the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch from e93a074 to 65c54e3 Compare November 29, 2024 12:31
@github-actions github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Nov 29, 2024
@lebauce lebauce force-pushed the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch from 65c54e3 to 70c8866 Compare November 29, 2024 12:43
@lebauce lebauce requested a review from YoannGh November 29, 2024 12:49
@lebauce lebauce force-pushed the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch from d0d8eaa to d741a8d Compare November 29, 2024 13:09
// 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) {
Copy link
Contributor

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 ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Nov 29, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use 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

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Nov 29, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: f308b79e-cf2c-4504-b480-039e5c3be32b

Baseline: a4a88c6
Comparison: 8adbcab
Diff

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

Fine details of change detection per experiment

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:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Comment on lines 59 to 68
WORKLOAD:
for {
select {
case workload := <-t.workloadsWithoutTags:
t.checkTags(workload)
default:
break WORKLOAD
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Contributor

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

@lebauce lebauce force-pushed the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch from d741a8d to 8c3e253 Compare December 3, 2024 09:16
@lebauce lebauce requested review from spikat and safchain December 3, 2024 09:16
@lebauce lebauce added the qa/rc-required Only for a PR that requires validation on the Release Candidate label Dec 3, 2024
@lebauce
Copy link
Contributor Author

lebauce commented Dec 3, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-03 14:28:18 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.


2024-12-03 14:29:30 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request build was cancelled

This merge request build was cancelled

@lebauce
Copy link
Contributor Author

lebauce commented Dec 3, 2024

/remove

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Devflow running: /remove

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-03 14:29:30 UTC ℹ️ Devflow: /remove

@lebauce lebauce force-pushed the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch from 8c3e253 to 8adbcab Compare December 3, 2024 14:30
@lebauce
Copy link
Contributor Author

lebauce commented Dec 3, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-03 15:23:21 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 7618f3a into main Dec 3, 2024
223 of 224 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the lebauce/change-tags-retry-login branch December 3, 2024 15:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe medium review PR review might take time qa/rc-required Only for a PR that requires validation on the Release Candidate team/agent-security
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants