-
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
podresources: Fix path to check socket #33701
podresources: Fix path to check socket #33701
Conversation
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=54872940 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 5966afb |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 8bf0527 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.82 | [+0.75, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.18 | [+0.11, +0.25] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.81, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.25, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.65, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.75, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.91, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.99, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.11 | [-0.89, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.66, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.82 | [-0.89, -0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.12 | [-4.19, +1.94] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -1.32 | [-1.35, -1.29] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -1.32 | [-2.11, -0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.50 | [-2.39, -0.62] | 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_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | 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 | 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 | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | |
✅ | 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:
-
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".
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, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 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 lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ func detectPodman(features FeatureMap, cfg model.Reader) { | |||
|
|||
func detectPodResources(features FeatureMap, cfg model.Reader) { | |||
// We only check the path from config. Default socket path is defined in the config |
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.
is this comment still accurate? to confirm my understanding: the value of kubernetes_kubelet_podresources_socket
is sufficient as the socket path and does not need to be prefixed with the default socket path (unix://
or npipe://
)?
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.
Yes, in kubelet/NewPodResourcesClient
we add the socket prefix as it is necessary there. It is not necessary here, as we're only checking for the file existence, and connecting as a socket using a different function,.
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! Do you mind updating comment to reflect this? Not sure if referencing default socket path is necessary anymore if it's being removed here
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.
Updated
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Fix the socket path used to check the presence of the PodResources socket.
Motivation
Fix a bug where the socket prefix was being added despite us trying to use it as a filesystem path.
Describe how you validated your changes
Validated running the agent in a k8s environment and ensuring it can access the
kubelet.sock
file and connect to it.Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes