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] Allow --compile-only and cross-compile in kmt.build #27111

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 3, 2024

Conversation

gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor

@gjulianm gjulianm commented Jun 27, 2024

What does this PR do?

Enables cross-compilation in the kmt.build task. Also adds an argument to build the binary without copying it to remote VMs.

Motivation

Enable testing `system-probe´ in different architectures.

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@gjulianm gjulianm added this to the 7.56.0 milestone Jun 27, 2024
@gjulianm gjulianm self-assigned this Jun 27, 2024
@gjulianm gjulianm added changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code labels Jun 27, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 37667963 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jun 27, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: a2259e48-9a32-49f0-b910-8d1b21ecd691 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 9551500
Comparison: 6d85826

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI links
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +3.75 [-9.52, +17.02] Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.41 [-0.40, +1.22] Logs
idle memory utilization +0.24 [+0.20, +0.27] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.00, +0.00] Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.08 [-0.12, -0.03] Logs
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization -0.21 [-5.03, +4.62] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.60 [-1.50, +0.29] Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.67 [-3.42, +2.08] Logs

Explanation

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".

@gjulianm gjulianm marked this pull request as ready for review June 28, 2024 10:10
@gjulianm gjulianm requested a review from a team as a code owner June 28, 2024 10:10
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.

approved with suggestion

Comment on lines +1132 to +1133
if compile_only:
return
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

consider (if not too much work) extracting the remaining of this function to another function and call it only if compile_only == False

@brycekahle
Copy link
Member

Also adds an argument to build the binary without copying it to remote VMs.

What is the use case of this?

@gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor Author

gjulianm commented Jul 1, 2024

Also adds an argument to build the binary without copying it to remote VMs.

What is the use case of this?

Mostly for testing and development of KMT, and parity with kmt.prepare which has a --compile-only flag too.

@gjulianm
Copy link
Contributor Author

gjulianm commented Jul 3, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jul 3, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 25m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 8a4fbe3 into main Jul 3, 2024
316 of 317 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the guillermo.julian/kmt-build-fix branch July 3, 2024 13:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code team/ebpf-platform
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants