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

[windows][wkint-492] Update ETW with new functions; add ability to get ETW stats #25494

Merged
merged 10 commits into from May 14, 2024

Conversation

derekwbrown
Copy link
Contributor

intermediate checking. Have standalone commit to allow changing number of ETW buffers

add ability to get etw stats

clean up cherry-pick

What does this PR do?

PR adds two new features to the ETW component for future use (at least) in CWS

  1. add ability to specify the number of ETW buffers
  2. add ability to query ETW for session statistics (namely dropped notifications)

Describe how to test/QA your changes

This PR is adding the functionality, but there's currently no consumer. Test would be to ensure no loss of functionality in existing consumer(s) (apm) (i.e. regression test).

intermediate checking. Have standalone commit to allow changing number of ETW buffers

add ability to get etw stats

clean up cherry-pick
@derekwbrown derekwbrown added this to the 7.55.0 milestone May 10, 2024
@derekwbrown derekwbrown requested review from a team as code owners May 10, 2024 02:00
@derekwbrown derekwbrown changed the title [windows] Update ETW with new functions; add ability to get ETW stats [windows][wkint-492] Update ETW with new functions; add ability to get ETW stats May 10, 2024
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented May 10, 2024

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=34207644 --os-family=ubuntu

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented May 10, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: cd0583c0-8c76-424d-87a1-d6812c0be38e
Baseline: 6d305d8
Comparison: 8529db1

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization -7.96 [-9.16, -6.77]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +6.18 [-15.72, +28.07]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.73 [-1.10, +4.57]
idle memory utilization +0.18 [+0.13, +0.22]
trace_agent_json ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.20, +0.20]
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01]
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.05, +0.02]
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.15 [-0.55, +0.25]
file_tree memory utilization -0.24 [-0.34, -0.13]
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.51 [-2.92, +1.89]
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization -4.46 [-9.13, +0.21]
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization -7.96 [-9.16, -6.77]

Explanation

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".

@@ -159,7 +159,9 @@ func (p *WindowsProbe) initEtwFIM() error {
if err != nil {
return err
}
p.fimSession, err = etwcomp.NewSession(etwSessionName)
p.fimSession, err = etwcomp.NewSession(etwSessionName, func(cfg *etw.SessionConfiguration) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it seems from the implementation of NewSession that we could pass nil instead of an empty body function here, but probably just a taste question

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

true.
It's a derivative of another branch where I had several, unrelated changes for doing the perf testing.

My orig implementation couldn't handle a nil. And, my orig implementation actually filled in something here. But in order to split out into smaller PRs, this PR is only to add the ability to set that config.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like @paulcacheux suggestion as well, or perhaps providing a default function that does nothing / apply default values:

func DefaultConfig(cfg *etw.SessionConfiguration) {
  //
}
...
etwcomp.NewSession(etwSessionName, etw.DefaultConfig)

It seems to me like it would be a simple change to make.

@derekwbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented May 13, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

There are 2 builds ahead! (estimated merge in less than 1h)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@derekwbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge -c

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented May 13, 2024

⚠️ MergeQueue

This merge request was unqueued

If you need support, contact us on Slack #devflow!

@derekwbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented May 13, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

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.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented May 14, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is going to start soon! (estimated merge in less than 26m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 09b8d38 into main May 14, 2024
275 of 287 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the db/expand-etw-comp branch May 14, 2024 01:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants