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

podresources: Fix path to check socket #33701

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2025

Conversation

gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor

@gjulianm gjulianm commented Feb 4, 2025

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

@gjulianm gjulianm self-assigned this Feb 4, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added team/container-platform The Container Platform Team short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Feb 4, 2025
@gjulianm gjulianm added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Feb 4, 2025
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 4, 2025

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 8bf0527eda92155de7198bfc5518d33fcff8c915

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 886.87MB 886.87MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 886.87MB 886.87MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 877.13MB 877.13MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 864.93MB 864.93MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 93.96MB 93.96MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 93.96MB 93.96MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 90.01MB 90.01MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 874.65MB 874.65MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 59.11MB 59.11MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 59.11MB 59.11MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 59.03MB 59.03MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 56.52MB 56.52MB 0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 456.53MB 456.53MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 93.89MB 93.89MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 89.94MB 89.94MB 0.50MB

Decision

✅ Passed

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 4, 2025

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=54872940 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 5966afb

@gjulianm gjulianm marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2025 16:33
@gjulianm gjulianm requested review from a team as code owners February 4, 2025 16:33
@gjulianm gjulianm added the ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR label Feb 4, 2025
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Feb 4, 2025

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: ceddbb1f-e712-4a1e-81b6-bf1e1b20239a

Baseline: 8bf0527
Comparison: 5966afb
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

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:

  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, 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
Copy link
Member

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://)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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,.

Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated

@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 Feb 4, 2025
@hush-hush hush-hush removed the request for review from rahulkaukuntla February 5, 2025 10:30
@gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor Author

gjulianm commented Feb 5, 2025

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Feb 5, 2025

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2025-02-05 10:30:46 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 27m.


2025-02-05 11:08:55 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 4f0aa81 into main Feb 5, 2025
227 of 228 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the guillermo.julian/fix-pod-resources-socketpath branch February 5, 2025 11:08
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.64.0 milestone Feb 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR changelog/no-changelog medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/container-platform The Container Platform Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants