-
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
[HAD-97] Add GPU Metadata to Process Info #31672
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: a480276
|
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=50230604 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit b0fa0d2 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: a480276 Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.65 | [-0.09, +1.39] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +0.64 | [-2.91, +4.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.60 | [+0.54, +0.66] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.53 | [-0.21, +1.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.30 | [+0.24, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.29 | [+0.12, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.26 | [-0.21, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.72, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.57, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.76, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.77, +0.78] | 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_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.75, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -0.02 | [-3.91, +3.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.06 | [-3.03, +2.92] | 1 | Logs |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -7.43 | [-7.61, -7.24] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 9/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | 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 | 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_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
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes