usm: Refactor monitors to use common uprobe attacher #28241
Conversation
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: e7715df
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 91280807-246a-4dfd-9217-e9347ac33071 Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: e7715df Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
No significant changes in experiment optimization goalsConfidence level: 90.00% There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.38 | [-0.44, +1.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | idle | memory utilization | +0.35 | [+0.30, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.14, -0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.28 | [-0.39, -0.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.49 | [-1.25, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -1.12 | [-3.91, +1.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | -1.79 | [-4.41, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | idle | memory_usage | 7/10 |
Explanation
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".
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
from
8aa0fe7
to
9a3a84e
Compare
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=44304380 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit eba45f5 |
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
2 times, most recently
from
391f14c
to
48f4ab3
Compare
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
from
60140b7
to
679d9c4
Compare
Serverless Benchmark Results
tl;drUse these benchmarks as an insight tool during development.
What is this benchmarking?The The benchmark is run using a large variety of lambda request payloads. In the charts below, there is one row for each event payload type. How do I interpret these charts?The charts below comes from The benchstat docs explain how to interpret these charts.
I need more helpFirst off, do not worry if the benchmarks are failing. They are not tests. The intention is for them to be a tool for you to use during development. If you would like a hand interpreting the results come chat with us in Benchmark stats |
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
6 times, most recently
from
46b33ef
to
892b64e
Compare
|
/trigger-ci |
|
🚂 Gitlab pipeline started Started pipeline #42666612 |
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
from
892b64e
to
c5bba23
Compare
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
from
c5bba23
to
8be221e
Compare
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/uprobe-attacher-refactor-usm
branch
from
8be221e
to
eba45f5
Compare
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 44304380 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
What does this PR do?
This PR applies the new uprobe attacher introduced in #27663 to the existing USM monitors, unifying features and behavior.
Motivation
Additional Notes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Several tests were performed in the load-test environment, using the manual QA checklist as a reference. The base version was the agent release 7.55. The commit under test for this branch was d87ae5175511826d94b6f623798ed8a1e33fcc3e, tests will be repeated before merge with the latest available commit of this branch.
soak_test - openssl
Dashboard
Accuracy base
Accuracy of this branch
soak_test - gotls
Dashboard
Accuracy base
Accuracy of this branch
soak_test - istio
Dashboard
Accuracy base
Accuracy of this branch
soak_test - nodejs
Dashboard
Accuracy base
Accuracy of this branch
Additionally, tests were performed with the
process-load-testconfiguration to better test the performance impact of the changes, which should be more clear with a higher load of processes being created/stopped. The differences in CPU and memory usages were not significant. The profiling comparisons were also checked and the CPU usage was similar in the changed code. Details:process-test - openssl
Dashboard and profiling comparison
process-test - go-tls
Dashboard and profiling comparison
process-test - nodejs
Dashboard and profiling comparison
process-test - istio
Dashboard and profiling comparison