[CWS] Lower a noisy ptrace info log to debug #31976
Conversation
spikat
added
changelog/no-changelog
team/agent-security
qa/done
github-actions
bot
added
component/system-probe
short review
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
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=50724237 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit dca1829 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 0b42e2b Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.66 | [-2.26, +3.59] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.22 | [+0.10, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.19 | [-0.60, +0.98] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.17 | [-0.30, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.74, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.07, +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 | -0.00 | [-0.73, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.87, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.72, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.12 | [-1.00, +0.75] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.36, -0.27] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.32 | [-0.38, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.36 | [-1.04, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.37 | [-1.13, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.78 | [-0.88, -0.67] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.48 | [-2.20, -0.76] | 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_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
|
The backport to To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal: # Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-7.61.x 7.61.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-7.61.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-31976-to-7.61.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 7f4316fe336920e1e5fb38e88c0d471695fcda2c
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-31976-to-7.61.x
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-7.61.xThen, create a pull request where the |
(cherry picked from commit 7f4316f)
(cherry picked from commit 7f4316f)
(cherry picked from commit 7f4316f)
What does this PR do?
It reduces the log level from Error to Debug, as we know the fallback can be racy and may not succeed.
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes