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] improve lock contention related to the pathnames LRU map #28737

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 2, 2024

Conversation

paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

@paulcacheux paulcacheux commented Aug 26, 2024

What does this PR do?

The pathnames map is currently driving most of our kernel side lock contention. To improve this, this PR moves the map to be a BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU LRU which reduces a lot the amount of contention.

Map resolution is used when eRPC fails, as such it's not critical if the LRU is behaving a bit differently than before.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Aug 26, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 43353070 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

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

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Aug 26, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 66cb6fd0-a8f8-4802-91ea-bdb309ba08c9 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 7f04426
Comparison: 0367507

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.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI links
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +1.22 [-1.29, +3.73] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.16 [+0.37, +1.96] Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +1.05 [+0.24, +1.87] Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.49 [-2.14, +3.13] Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.34 [-12.35, +13.03] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.00, +0.00] Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] Logs
idle memory utilization -0.00 [-0.03, +0.02] Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.96 [-1.02, -0.89] Logs

Bounds Checks

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed
idle memory_usage 10/10

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:

  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 August 26, 2024 14:47
@paulcacheux paulcacheux requested a review from a team as a code owner August 26, 2024 14:47
@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Sep 2, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

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!

@paulcacheux paulcacheux force-pushed the paulcacheux/reduce-pathnames-lock branch from 0367507 to 0952785 Compare September 2, 2024 11:24
@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Sep 2, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 22m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 501e940 into main Sep 2, 2024
206 of 222 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the paulcacheux/reduce-pathnames-lock branch September 2, 2024 12:24
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.58.0 milestone Sep 2, 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