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

Journal probe rework #7

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Feb 17, 2017
Merged

Conversation

phmccarty
Copy link
Contributor

This series reworks the existing journal probe to make it more generic, able to capture error log messages for any service, not just the crashprobe.

@phmccarty phmccarty force-pushed the journal-probe-rework branch from 92059d7 to 6f80467 Compare January 21, 2017 01:38
// The three highest log levels, all indicating errors
MATCH("PRIORITY=1");
MATCH("PRIORITY=2");
MATCH("PRIORITY=3");
OR;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps name-space the macros (JOURNAL_MATCH), (JOURNAL_AND) etc...

Have a comment summarizing boolean logic (boot_id & (1 || 2 || 3 || exited)

Unit tests?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I renamed the macros and added documentation for the logical expression.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@phmccarty phmccarty Feb 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The journal probe is in the same boat as the crash probe... No unit tests are written for either because they rely on system libraries for most of their operation, and I'm not sure how I would go about mocking everything for the tests.

The error case is negative, so fix the return code conditional check
appropriately.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
Previous behavior was to only filter LOG_ERR messages from the
telemetrics crashprobe, but it will be helpful to make this probe more
generic to capture log messages with the highest log levels.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
The make payloads more legible, make sure separate messages are newline
separated.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
To avoid having to read the repetitive error handling when adding
journal filters, add some helper macros.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
This field appears to be set when services fail, so filter on it as
well.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
The previous logic concatenates log messages on initial startup, when
the entire journal is read to process existing messages. But doing so
might run into the payload size limit (8KB), and thus fail to create a
record.

Sending one record per log message will ensure that the payload size
remains relatively small, almost always below the 8KB size limit.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
I omitted log level 0 from the filter, so add it here.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
@phmccarty phmccarty force-pushed the journal-probe-rework branch from 6f80467 to 15bdcf0 Compare February 13, 2017 19:17
return false;
}

r = sd_journal_add_match(journal, "PRIORITY=2", 0);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I sense a configuration option and a loop eventually for this code ala:

telemetrics.conf: journal-log-level = X
for (int i = 1; i < atoi(X); i++) { sd_journal_add_match }

kind of thing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A config option would be helpful, I agree. I opened #12 for tracking.

r = sd_journal_add_match(journal, data, 0); \
if (r < 0) { \
tm_journal_match_err(r); \
return false; \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Always a little scary when the macro can return in some cases but in this case it seems reasonable enough.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. In this case, sd_journal_add_match and friends returning an error is very unlikely, so I figured the returns here would be acceptable for unlikely conditions.

// The three highest log levels, all indicating errors
JOURNAL_MATCH("PRIORITY=1");
JOURNAL_MATCH("PRIORITY=2");
JOURNAL_MATCH("PRIORITY=3");
JOURNAL_OR;
// Only set for service-level error conditions
JOURNAL_MATCH("EXIT_CODE=exited");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So this confuses me a little. I'd expect exited to be a possible issue assuming non zero exit but looking at:
journalctl -F EXIT_CODE

dumped
exited
killed

I'd assume we may want to look at the dumped and killed case potentially too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, interesting. In my testing, I only encountered "exited", but I didn't inspect the source to see what other values it accepts.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Filed an issue for this (#13)

// For now, we send one record per log message, in case the
// there is a large backlog of messages and we exceed the
// payload size limit (8KB). And ignore errors, hoping that it's
// a transient problem.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine as we can try to put things back together server side. Though could we have a message-id + optional message part X/Y type thing? It would really make things easier.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was thinking of using the telemetry machine-id + client record timestamp fields to piece together a series of journal probe records. Would that be acceptable?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah yea that should work just as well. Drinking from the firehouse of the full log will always be a little tricky.


if (!send_data(error_class)) {
telem_log(LOG_ERR, "Failed to send data. Ignoring.\n");
return num_entries;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So I am a little worried about this as the function doesn't seem to take a last tried value so I'm unsure how well this would handle an error in the middle of sending messages and resuming from that point later on.

}

if (!payload) {
} else if (ret == 0) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah if I would have read a little further on I'd have seen it.

So I'm wondering if before returning when send_data fails, we could put the data back onto the journal so it can be attempted to be read next time.

Also ret could be 0 when send_data fails so the no existing entries log message would be wrong. I'd return -1 in the send_data case and hopefully there is a way to get data back into the journal after pulling it out.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is an excellent observation. I wasn't considering how the probe should behave in the event of send_data failures. I suppose I could call sd_journal_previous to move the pointer in the reverse direction in this case, but a timeout would be needed...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I think that I want to continue ignoring send_data failures for now, since this may indicate a configuration problem with the telemetry client on the system. Also, I think it's acceptable for the journal probe to be "lossy" with respect to the data it collects.

But I will revisit the error handling here later.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll remove the LOG_DEBUG you mentioned.

A return value of 0 can also indicate send_data() failure, so remove
this log message.

Signed-off-by: Patrick McCarty <[email protected]>
@phmccarty phmccarty merged commit 9b435f3 into clearlinux:master Feb 17, 2017
@phmccarty phmccarty deleted the journal-probe-rework branch May 14, 2018 19:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants