[EBPF] gpu: reduce flakiness of the e2e test#35358
Merged
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 3 commits intomainfrom Mar 25, 2025
Merged
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
team/ebpf-platform
short review
Contributor
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: dda inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=59738501 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 5580e62 |
Contributor
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Contributor
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 59738501 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
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 |
Contributor
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 5654b1e Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.70 | [+0.65, +0.75] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.45 | [-0.38, +1.29] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.41 | [-0.36, +1.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.72, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.01, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.31, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.64, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.70, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.88, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.80, +0.75] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.80, +0.73] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.53, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.21 | [-0.25, -0.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.01 | [-3.80, +1.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -1.71 | [-1.79, -1.63] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.98 | [-2.08, -1.88] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -2.31 | [-2.46, -2.15] | 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:
-
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_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_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_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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.
gjulianm
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/done
gjulianm
force-pushed
the
guillermo.julian/e2e-error-logs
branch
from
fb20bd7 to
5580e62
Compare
val06
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
The expected merge time in
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
What does this PR do?
This PR tries to reduce flakiness of the GPU e2e tests by wrapping the
docker pullcommands in a retry loop.Motivation
When the docker pull fails and pulumi tries to re-up the stack, it usually fails with a
canceled contexterror. Reducing the amount of failures of docker pull should reduce that flakiness.Describe how you validated your changes
E2E test passing to ensure it's not broken, then we'll monitor flakiness of the test.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes