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] allow fim_enabled to explicitly be set to false #25031

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2024

Conversation

paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

@paulcacheux paulcacheux commented Apr 23, 2024

What does this PR do?

Currently you can enable CWS using either enabled or fim_enabled. For windows especially we would like to be able to enable runtime, but keeping the option to disable fim in case of issue. This PR allows this by turning fim_enabled into a tri-state, that we set to true if unset and CWS is enabled.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Apr 23, 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=32749017 --os-family=ubuntu

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Apr 23, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 1d91dc9a-27b4-4953-8c8e-4e8744064036
Baseline: 5d5c9e4
Comparison: b801f87

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization -57.64 [-61.36, -53.93]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +2.46 [-19.02, +23.94]
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +1.41 [-3.20, +6.03]
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.41 [-2.00, +2.81]
process_agent_standard_check memory utilization +0.34 [+0.28, +0.40]
idle memory utilization +0.27 [+0.23, +0.31]
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.09 [-0.25, +0.44]
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.03 [-0.01, +0.07]
trace_agent_json ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.02, +0.00]
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.02, -0.00]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.03 [-0.24, +0.17]
process_agent_real_time_mode memory utilization -0.14 [-0.19, -0.09]
process_agent_standard_check_with_stats memory utilization -0.50 [-0.56, -0.44]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -1.95 [-4.82, +0.92]
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization -57.64 [-61.36, -53.93]

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:

  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".

@paulcacheux paulcacheux marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2024 07:38
@paulcacheux paulcacheux requested review from a team as code owners April 24, 2024 07:38
@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Apr 24, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Apr 24, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

There are 2 builds ahead! (estimated merge in less than 1h)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 4327bc1 into main Apr 24, 2024
210 of 212 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the paulcacheux/fim-enabled-v2 branch April 24, 2024 15:01
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.54.0 milestone Apr 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants