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

sharedlibraries: rework ebpf prog concurrency #31745

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 4, 2024

Conversation

guyarb
Copy link
Contributor

@guyarb guyarb commented Dec 4, 2024

What does this PR do?

Replaces the old method for initialization and teardown for the EBPFProgram struct.
Instead of sync.Once and atomic.Int32 to support concurrency, we simply use a mutex.

Motivation

The current code is hacky and seems complicated.
Trying to simplify the readability of the code and avoid edge cases.

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

negligible (if any) performance impact, as we have about 3-4 instances that use it, and the initialization/termination runs once per handler.

@guyarb guyarb added team/usm The USM team qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Dec 4, 2024
@guyarb guyarb requested a review from a team as a code owner December 4, 2024 12:31
@guyarb guyarb changed the base branch from main to guy.arbitman/rework-ebpf-program-test December 4, 2024 12:31
@github-actions github-actions bot added component/system-probe short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Dec 4, 2024
@guyarb guyarb added changelog/no-changelog and removed qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Dec 4, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 4, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 50330944 (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

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 4, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=50330944 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 4f73a30

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 4, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 622967e0-6122-4599-8930-eb685c539244

Baseline: a79d704
Comparison: 4f73a30
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization -7.76 [-11.11, -4.41] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +2.07 [+2.01, +2.13] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +1.32 [+0.63, +2.01] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.34 [+0.20, +0.48] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.06 [-0.67, +0.79] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.04 [-0.00, +0.09] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.69, +0.63] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.03 [-0.13, +0.07] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.89, +0.82] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.07 [-0.53, +0.39] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.17 [-0.80, +0.46] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.36 [-1.13, +0.42] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.51 [-1.29, +0.27] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.56 [-0.66, -0.45] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -1.57 [-4.46, +1.31] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -2.13 [-5.90, +1.64] 1 Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization -7.76 [-11.11, -4.41] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
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 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 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
quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10

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, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@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 Dec 4, 2024
Base automatically changed from guy.arbitman/rework-ebpf-program-test to main December 4, 2024 14:13
Preliminary change to replace the sync.Once with a mutex, to better handle access to the
EBPF program singleton
No need to use atomic operations, as we're protected with a mutex
@guyarb guyarb force-pushed the guy.arbitman/rework-ebpf-prog-concurrency branch from fcf9687 to 1579436 Compare December 4, 2024 14:20
@guyarb
Copy link
Contributor Author

guyarb commented Dec 4, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 4, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-04 16:07:40 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 03b83e1 into main Dec 4, 2024
296 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the guy.arbitman/rework-ebpf-prog-concurrency branch December 4, 2024 16:31
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.62.0 milestone Dec 4, 2024
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 team/usm The USM team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants