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

[OTEL-2371] try pin github.com/shirou/gopsutil/v4 #33208

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

songy23
Copy link
Member

@songy23 songy23 commented Jan 21, 2025

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@songy23 songy23 added team/opentelemetry OpenTelemetry team qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Jan 21, 2025
@songy23 songy23 added this to the 7.63.0 milestone Jan 21, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jan 21, 2025
Copy link

Go Package Import Differences

Baseline: edd9ae2
Comparison: 2ecacef

binaryosarchchange
agentdarwinamd64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu
agentdarwinarm64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu
process-agentdarwinamd64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu
process-agentdarwinarm64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu
trace-agentdarwinamd64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu
trace-agentdarwinarm64
+1, -3
-github.com/ebitengine/purego
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/cgo
-github.com/ebitengine/purego/internal/strings
+github.com/shoenig/go-m1cpu

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor edd9ae272a4ea05c1f9d6941b11b73d159b67cae

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 938.80MB 938.80MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 938.80MB 938.80MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 59.01MB 59.01MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 59.01MB 59.01MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 90.11MB 90.11MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 929.14MB 929.14MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 58.93MB 58.93MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 56.44MB 56.44MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 90.04MB 90.04MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm -0.00MB 94.06MB 94.07MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse -0.00MB 94.06MB 94.06MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb -0.00MB 93.99MB 94.00MB 0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb -0.01MB 477.43MB 477.44MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm -0.02MB 925.44MB 925.45MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb -0.02MB 915.79MB 915.81MB 0.50MB

Decision

✅ Passed

Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: b2e5ac40-20bc-4fff-885d-5f4fa66adc8f

Baseline: edd9ae2
Comparison: 2ecacef
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.01 [+0.28, +1.74] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.33 [+0.29, +0.37] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.33 [-0.14, +0.80] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.15 [-0.62, +0.92] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.07 [-0.71, +0.86] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.04 [-3.17, +3.25] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.88, +0.96] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.04 [-0.01, +0.09] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.64, +0.64] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput -0.01 [-0.91, +0.90] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.10, +0.08] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.02 [-0.90, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.78, +0.72] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.12 [-0.21, -0.04] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_tree memory utilization -0.32 [-0.47, -0.18] 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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_idle_all_features, 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/opentelemetry OpenTelemetry team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant