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

[EBPF] gpu: use the tagger to add GPU-related tags #32906

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 15, 2025

Conversation

gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor

@gjulianm gjulianm commented Jan 13, 2025

What does this PR do?

This PR changes the GPU check to use the tagger for GPU related tags.

Motivation

Uniform tagging and using the data from WMS.

Describe how you validated your changes

E2E tests updated to ensure the metrics have the tags we want.

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

Requires both #32052 and #32109 to work properly.

@gjulianm gjulianm self-assigned this Jan 13, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/ebpf-platform labels Jan 13, 2025
@gjulianm gjulianm added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Jan 13, 2025
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 75020721-dfed-45fe-95fd-9694d6042056

Baseline: 14ca022
Comparison: 0d45569
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.29 [+0.24, +0.33] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.06 [-0.84, +0.95] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.75, +0.83] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.03 [-0.88, +0.95] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.01 [-0.46, +0.47] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.00 [-0.87, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.66, +0.62] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.03 [-0.13, +0.07] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.04 [-0.78, +0.71] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.08 [-0.16, +0.01] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_tree memory utilization -0.38 [-0.53, -0.23] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.45 [-1.16, +0.25] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.56 [-1.34, +0.23] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.85 [-0.92, -0.78] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -1.60 [-4.75, +1.55] 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 intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10
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:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. 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.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate 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_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Jan 13, 2025
@gjulianm gjulianm force-pushed the guillermo.julian/use-tagger-gpu-check branch from d565a6f to d8b2eeb Compare January 15, 2025 10:53
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 14ca022f1b4a7cbdc6c0fd2fe8824f5ec00d7802

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.04MB ⚠️ 951.59MB 951.55MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.04MB ⚠️ 961.25MB 961.21MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.04MB ⚠️ 961.25MB 961.21MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.01MB ⚠️ 938.87MB 938.87MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.01MB ⚠️ 948.51MB 948.51MB 0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 478.15MB 478.15MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 93.95MB 93.95MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 93.95MB 93.95MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 90.00MB 90.00MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 58.84MB 58.84MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 58.92MB 58.92MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 58.92MB 58.92MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 56.35MB 56.35MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 93.88MB 93.88MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 89.93MB 89.93MB 0.50MB

Decision

⚠️ Warning

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=53075492 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 0d45569

@gjulianm gjulianm marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2025 12:59
@gjulianm gjulianm requested a review from a team as a code owner January 15, 2025 12:59
@gjulianm gjulianm added the ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR label Jan 15, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@val06 val06 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

minor comments

pkg/collector/corechecks/gpu/gpu.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/collector/corechecks/gpu/nvidia/collector.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2025-01-15 16:21:27 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 35m.


2025-01-15 16:55:58 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit c23107a into main Jan 15, 2025
224 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the guillermo.julian/use-tagger-gpu-check branch January 15, 2025 16:55
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.63.0 milestone Jan 15, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR changelog/no-changelog medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/ebpf-platform
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants