-
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
optimise tagger server chunking function using iter package #31756
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
optimise tagger server chunking function using iter package #31756
Conversation
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.
The change looks good.
Could you try to put in place a benchmark to compare the 2 implementations?
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=50335573 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit c59e510 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d4ed527 Optimization Goals: ❌ Regression(s) detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +5.94 | [+2.07, +9.82] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +2.78 | [-0.81, +6.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.76 | [-0.26, +5.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +1.09 | [+0.99, +1.20] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.55 | [-0.16, +1.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.32 | [+0.23, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.07 | [+0.02, +0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.84, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.64, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.08, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.68, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.56, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.25 | [-1.02, +0.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.30 | [-0.44, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.42 | [-1.19, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.01 | [-1.75, -0.28] | 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_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 lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 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.
What does this PR do?
This PR leverages the
iter
golang package introduced in golang 1.23.0 in order to optimise the chunk function used in the tagger server.Motivation
Optimise memory consumption of the chunking function used to split the tagger stream events into a sequence of chunks, each having a bounded size (in bytes).
Describe how you validated your changes
Unit tests are implemented.
E2E should be enough since they validated the remote tagger is still working.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
None
Additional Notes
None