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

[ebpfless] Refactor TCP Seq logic to include sequence bump from SYN and FIN #31382

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

pimlu
Copy link
Contributor

@pimlu pimlu commented Nov 22, 2024

What does this PR do?

  1. Replaces payloadSeq logic withcalcNextSeq which slightly simplifies retransmit logic in the next PR, [NPM-3530] Add TCP retransmit support to ebpfless #31397.
    The difference is, calcNextSeq includes the increment to Seq that happens when the SYN or FIN flags are set
  2. TCP reset only counts as a closed connection if it got opened to begin with, this fixes a couple tests regarding that.
  3. Adds some more telemetry via checkInvalidTcp for unusual TCP packets

Motivation

This refactor gets rid of an off-by-one correction and is useful for the upcoming TCP retransmit PR

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Tracer should still pass the same tests as before.

To run this PR's ebpfless tests:

go test -tags=linux,linux_bpf,npm,process,test ./pkg/network/tracer/connection/ebpfless

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@pimlu pimlu added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Nov 22, 2024
@pimlu pimlu added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 22, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added component/system-probe short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Nov 22, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Nov 22, 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=49869000 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 685f7fd

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Nov 22, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 0dfae31-13d9-4661-84ed-7542a87981cc

Baseline: 188e19d
Comparison: 685f7fd
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +3.75 [+0.16, +7.33] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +1.25 [+0.56, +1.94] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.68 [-3.39, +4.75] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.38 [-0.36, +1.11] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.36 [-0.10, +0.83] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.23 [-0.54, +1.00] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.14 [+0.10, +0.19] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.01 [-0.62, +0.65] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.09, +0.09] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.90, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.73, +0.68] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.05 [-0.10, -0.00] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.47 [-1.26, +0.31] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.59 [-0.73, -0.46] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -1.21 [-1.32, -1.11] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
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 memory_usage 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

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_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@pimlu pimlu marked this pull request as ready for review November 22, 2024 20:59
@pimlu pimlu requested a review from a team as a code owner November 22, 2024 20:59
@pimlu pimlu requested a review from AyyLam November 22, 2024 20:59
@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 22, 2024
@pimlu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pimlu commented Nov 25, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-11-25 15:39:55 UTC ℹ️ 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.


2024-11-25 16:38:53 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 499fc90 into main Nov 25, 2024
290 of 293 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the stuart.geipel/seq-refactor-2 branch November 25, 2024 16:57
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/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants