-
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
[ebpfless] Make UDP tests pass in ebpfless test suite #30934
Conversation
|
||
remotePort := rand.Int()%5000 + 15000 | ||
remoteAddr := &net.UDPAddr{IP: net.ParseIP(offsetguess.InterfaceLocalMulticastIPv6), Port: remotePort} |
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.
Flagging that I changed the remoteAddr
away from multicast, this is because SOCK_RAW does not capture multicast traffic unless you add extra sockopts and flags to the pktType in the bind address documented here
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=48751585 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 1fec007 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: b399f5d Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +2.15 | [-1.22, +5.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +0.79 | [-3.08, +4.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.39 | [+0.34, +0.44] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.27 | [-0.40, +0.93] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.04 | [-0.01, +0.09] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.30, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.02 | [-0.11, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.25, +0.24] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.09, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.47, +0.43] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.24, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.17 | [-0.27, -0.07] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.24 | [-0.72, +0.23] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.26 | [-0.99, +0.47] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 4/10 | |
❌ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 7/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
❌ | 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_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | 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:
-
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".
going to ask about this since I want to make sure the test wasn't set up like that for a reason
e319057
to
1fec007
Compare
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
This makes some minor adjustments to make the UDP test suite pass
Motivation
Reducing noise in the ebpfless test suite
Describe how to test/QA your changes
time DD_REMOTE_CONFIGURATION_ENABLED=false TEST_EBPFLESS_OVERRIDE=true sudo -E go test -tags=linux,linux_bpf,npm,process,test ./pkg/network/tracer -v --run TestTracerSuite/eBPFless
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Changed IP for TestUnconnectedUDPSendIPv6 - gopacket doesn't capture multicast without extra sock_raw configuration
Additional Notes