[EBPF] gpu: refactor probe_test to use a suite

[gjulianm]

What does this PR do?

Refactors the probe_test file to use a suite for the test.

Motivation

Move common code to functions, facilitate testing in different build modes for #30574

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

The process monitor initialization has not been refactored, as it will be changed in #30755

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 48433535 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• 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]

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=48433535 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 86cefa8

[cit-pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 5a5f2e01-e94c-43e4-bdc9-35ca4f5dcafe

Baseline: 78c4fd8
Comparison: 86cefa8
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	+4.08	[-0.01, +8.18]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.42	[+0.37, +0.47]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.13	[-0.36, +0.61]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.01	[-0.28, +0.30]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.01	[-0.09, +0.10]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.01	[-0.41, +0.40]	1	Logs
➖	idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.04	[-0.14, +0.07]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.04	[-0.09, +0.01]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.06	[-0.26, +0.14]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.16	[-0.41, +0.09]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-0.16	[-0.21, -0.12]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.26	[-0.98, +0.46]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.86	[-0.97, -0.75]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-1.19	[-1.32, -1.06]	1	Logs
➖	pycheck_lots_of_tags	% cpu utilization	-2.17	[-5.63, +1.29]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	links
❌	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	lost_bytes	4/10
❌	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	lost_bytes	5/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	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
✅	idle	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	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".

[val06]

nit comment, can be also done as a separate PR

[val06]

do we want to have at least one test to check this scenario and make sure there are no "timing" edge-cases or any other unexpected surprises?

[gjulianm]

We could check it, although it shouldn't be too problematic, the initial sync is just scanning the procfs before starting the goroutine that listens to new processes. Created a ticket to track it

[gjulianm]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

---

2024-11-07 11:20:05 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 24m.