Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat(metrics): add pipeline average time metrics #3845
feat(metrics): add pipeline average time metrics #3845
Changes from all commits
9b070ca
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This value is actually the time in the kernel + submit time + the time it took tracee to read the buffer, isn't it?
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.
It would be kernel + submit time + time blocked in channel (what you meant by read time?). Note that the endpoint timestamp is taken before we decode the buffer.
This time blocked in channel is actually critical and I haven't considered it. This measurement should be rethought.
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 usage of this getOrigEvtTimestamp is discouraged since future fixes to the timestamp normalization may cause it to break. Also see here: #3820 (comment)
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.
I agree it's not ideal, but i'm not sure there's any better option until #3820 is resolved.
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.
Isn't this actually the time in the kernel+pipeline?
If so, consider renaming this to something else, e.g.
AvgEventProcessingTime
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.
Yep, this should be renamed. I think I originally included a subtraction of the former kernel time here, but it didn't work out. Anyway, that is why the original name was leftover.
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.
I think we should consider making these stats per-event type.
Different events have different behavior and processing time, and it would be much more informative to know about the average time of the different events.
WDYT?
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.
That's how i've originally wanted to do it, but I couldn't find a good way to represent it in prometheus (ideally a histogram, yet I couldn't figure out at the time how to implement it with their SDK). If you find it critical, this PR should probably be closed and reintroduced with that implementation in mind.
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.
Not directly related to this PR, but we should consider renaming this namespace
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.