-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[CWS] process cache entry refcount fixes #36412
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
Conversation
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Size reduction summary
Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: dda inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=63344193 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 34cf0a2 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: a49a8e1 ❌ Experiments with missing or malformed dataThis is a critical error. No usable optimization goal data was produced by the listed experiments. This may be a result of misconfiguration. Ping #single-machine-performance and we can help out.
Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.60 | [+0.55, +0.65] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.52 | [+0.46, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.40 | [+0.36, +0.44] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.40 | [-3.35, +4.15] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.25 | [+0.20, +0.30] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.10 | [-0.05, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.15, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.80, +0.93] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.83, +0.94] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.83, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.82, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.86, +0.90] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.29, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.88, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-1.00, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.32, -0.14] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.39, -0.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.32 | [-1.14, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.58 | [-0.65, -0.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.63 | [-0.70, -0.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.90 | [-1.04, -0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.57 | [-4.29, +1.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otlp_ingest_traces | memory utilization | -2.16 | [-2.45, -1.87] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | 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 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | 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:
-
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_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.
- 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.
a7caf2c
to
67c0965
Compare
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
aa0ff00
to
3dfc421
Compare
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.
Do you think it makes sense to move the increment on the cacheSize
counter variable from insertEntry
to the NewProcessCacheEntry
method instead? Should this be done in this PR?
Good point, going to adddress this in another PR |
4e4e84f
to
34cf0a2
Compare
/merge |
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
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.
The expected merge time in
|
(cherry picked from commit 7b87646)
What does this PR do?
Add checks for the cache entry release.
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes