-
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
[EVPProxy] Do not manually cancel the request context #30183
[EVPProxy] Do not manually cancel the request context #30183
Conversation
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 1aa29056-0368-4b9f-8dc3-931c3777faa2 Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: 5f96339 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.01 | [-1.50, +3.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.68 | [-0.14, +1.49] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.49 | [-0.00, +0.97] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle | memory utilization | +0.26 | [+0.22, +0.31] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.16 | [+0.03, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.09 | [-0.02, +0.20] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.09 | [+0.04, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.18, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.31, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.20, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.10, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.24, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.01 | [-1.73, -0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -1.06 | [-3.86, +1.75] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed |
---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | idle | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | idle_all_features | 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:
-
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".
b0b8522
to
c1134fc
Compare
c1134fc
to
83e0eb0
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=46861673 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 58e99d6 |
👋 Overall this change looks fine, can you add (or modify an existing) test to confirm this change and ensure it doesn't regress in the future? Once that's done you can add a qa/done label as well! Thanks! |
bb53010
to
58e99d6
Compare
I though writing an automated test for this case would be super hard, but it was actually nice and simple 😮 I added a test that fails with the previous code and passes now 👌 |
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.
Thanks for adding that test! :)
/merge |
🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue The median merge time in Use |
Context
In #26336 I added a timeout to the request context so that requests don't wait forever.
However, I also added a
defer ctxCancel()
call that manually cancelled the context at the end of theRoundTrip
. This is not necessary because the parent context will already be cancelled when done, and furthermore it was causing problems with chunked (Transfer-Encoding: chunked
) responses.What does this PR do?
Do not cancel the context manually.
Describe how to test/QA your changes
There's a reproducer in this ticket: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SDTEST-1010?focusedCommentId=1947043