Add WLAN Integration #32530
Add WLAN Integration #32530
Conversation
…arwin implementation
github-actions
bot
added
team/platform-integrations
medium review
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d00e512 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.73 | [+0.67, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.70 | [+0.02, +1.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.60 | [+0.47, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.25 | [+0.21, +0.28] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.77, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.81, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.85, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.64, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.13, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.79, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.65, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.15 | [-0.94, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.19 | [-0.27, -0.10] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.31 | [-0.78, +0.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.78 | [-4.99, +1.43] | 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 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.
|
/trigger-ci --variable RUN_ALL_BUILDS=true --variable RUN_KITCHEN_TESTS=true --variable RUN_E2E_TESTS=on --variable RUN_UNIT_TESTS=on --variable RUN_KMT_TESTS=on |
Devflow running:
|
|
/trigger-ci --variable RUN_ALL_BUILDS=true --variable RUN_KITCHEN_TESTS=true --variable RUN_E2E_TESTS=on --variable RUN_UNIT_TESTS=on --variable RUN_KMT_TESTS=on |
Devflow running:
|
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: d00e512
|
|
/trigger-ci --variable RUN_ALL_BUILDS=true --variable RUN_KITCHEN_TESTS=off --variable RUN_E2E_TESTS=off --variable RUN_UNIT_TESTS=off --variable RUN_KMT_TESTS=off |
Devflow running:
|
NouemanKHAL
added
the
qa/done
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=52544811 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 1cdb17c |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
github-actions
bot
added
long review
| info.channel = (int)wifiInterface.wlanChannel.channelNumber; | ||
| info.noise = (int)wifiInterface.noiseMeasurement; | ||
| info.transmitRate = wifiInterface.transmitRate; | ||
| info.hardwareAddress = [[wifiInterface hardwareAddress] UTF8String]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hardwareAddress can return nil, would it make sense to check for it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! I will check it in the same manner as the SSID and BSSID and replace it with a unknown default value.
| WiFiInfo info; | ||
|
|
||
| info.rssi = (int)wifiInterface.rssiValue; | ||
| info.ssid = [[wifiInterface ssid] UTF8String]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not very familiar with objective c, is UTF8String value is going to be valid long enough to read with GoString? When the NSString returned by ssid is freed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @vickenty, you're right! The object could be released on the Objective C side possibily via Automatic Reference Counting, so there is a chance that on the Go side we won't have enough time to read the string.
To avoid such cases, I wrapped the whole function body in a @autoreleasepool that will automatically handle memory allocation/deallocation during the function lifetime / scope, and then we will just return a copy the string and manually free it on the Go side.
Reference: Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide by Apple
|
|
||
| // Wrapper function to start location updates | ||
| void InitLocationServices() { | ||
| LocationManager *locationManager = [[LocationManager alloc] init]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This gets called every check run, is this allocating a new object every time? Will those be released automatically?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The check will probably run every 30-45s, I suggest we sleep for 5-10 seconds the time we retrieve the wifi information and we get the location access, and then release the locationManager object.
What do you think? I don't think that we can persist the code between different check runs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since InitLocationServices is always called right before GetWiFiInformation - can we put this inside the autorelease pool (inside GetWiFiInformation)? It looks like these are always called consecutively.
AFAIK right now this code is leaking locationManager on every run.
I guess a followup question is - do we even need to handle the delegate callbacks in location manager? Can we instead just check authorizationStatus, if grants permission - just query wifi state? (I'm not sure CWWiFiClient needs a long lived CLLocationManager - just permissions correct me if I'm wrong)
If authorizationStatus denies permission, call requestWhenInUseAuthorization. And in the next check run, we will hopefully have permission at that point
FWIW authorizationStatus is a class method, so we don't need to init a locationManager if we already have permission on future runs.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| - (void)locationManager:(CLLocationManager *)manager didFailWithError:(NSError *)error { | ||
| NSLog(@"Location update failed with error: %@", error.localizedDescription); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where do these messages end up? Would it make sense to use agent logging facilities instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It definitely would be better, would it be easy to do that? I guess I could use the C API of the agent? I'm not very familiar with that, any help would be appreciated!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see two ways:
- add logging C logging function in cgo, and call it from Objective C (the agent doesn't have a C API that can be used here)
- accumulate errors in the obj-c code and extract them as needed in the go check code.
… and release objects created in that scope
What does this PR do?
Adds a WLAN integration as a corecheck in the agent.
Motivation
Monitor the current Wi-Fi interface in use and collect various metrics to check the health of the Wi-Fi connection.
For now, the check collects the following data:
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes