usm: process monitor: tests: Handle test flakiness #32714
Conversation
In the original test, if we failed capturing exec/exit event, we would fail after the first iteration in the loop. The new form tries for 10 times to capture the events
guyarb
added
changelog/no-changelog
team/usm
github-actions
bot
added
component/system-probe
short review
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 52291853 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
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 |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=52291853 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit f0f9665 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 5001b19 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.49 | [+0.40, +0.57] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.72, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.70, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.61, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.86, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.12, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.84, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.54, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.14 | [-0.97, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.17 | [-0.95, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.17 | [-0.21, -0.13] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.18 | [-0.32, -0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.84 | [-0.89, -0.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.10 | [-1.76, -0.43] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.27 | [-4.47, +1.93] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | 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 | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | 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:
-
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_logs, 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_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
| require.True(ct, exitRecorder.has(uint32(cmd.Process.Pid)), "didn't capture exit event %d", cmd.Process.Pid) | ||
| }, 1*time.Second, 100*time.Millisecond) | ||
| } | ||
| // Trying for a second (10 iterations * 100ms) to capture exec and exit events. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: this duplicates the previous comment, I would suggest removing this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is not the same, we have two require.Eventually, inner and outer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would clarify the difference between them, as the comment currently says the same thing ("to capture exec and exit events").
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the goal is quite the same, we create a binary, and waiting up to a second to capture exit/exec events for this PID
in case we fail, we try (outer loop) up to 10 times, as the process monitor logic is not sequential
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Robust check for capturing exec/exit events
Motivation
In the original test, if we failed capturing exec/exit event, we would fail after the first iteration in the loop. The new form tries for 10 times to capture the events
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes