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

Implement caching for GenerateContainerIDFromOriginInfo #32351

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 23, 2024

Conversation

wdhif
Copy link
Member

@wdhif wdhif commented Dec 18, 2024

What does this PR do?

Implement caching for GenerateContainerIDFromOriginInfo using the github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache implementation.

Motivation

This is needed to fully support GenerateContainerIDFromOriginInfo use cases.

Describe how you validated your changes

Validated using the following patch:

diff --git a/comp/core/tagger/impl-remote/remote.go b/comp/core/tagger/impl-remote/remote.go
index 7dd668b18a..da9c5ed25e 100644
--- a/comp/core/tagger/impl-remote/remote.go
+++ b/comp/core/tagger/impl-remote/remote.go
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ import (
 const (
        noTimeout         = 0 * time.Minute
        streamRecvTimeout = 10 * time.Minute
-       cacheExpiration   = 1 * time.Minute
+       cacheExpiration   = 10 * time.Second
 )

 var (
diff --git a/pkg/util/cache/cache.go b/pkg/util/cache/cache.go
index e78a1562fd..f2c751d12a 100644
--- a/pkg/util/cache/cache.go
+++ b/pkg/util/cache/cache.go
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 package cache

 import (
+       "github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/log"
        "strings"
        "time"

@@ -88,8 +89,10 @@ func Get[T any](key string, cb func() (T, error)) (T, error) {
 //     cached with the given expire duration and returned.
 func GetWithExpiration[T any](key string, cb func() (T, error), expire time.Duration) (T, error) {
        if x, found := Cache.Get(key); found {
+               log.Errorf("w: hit for key %s", key)
                return x.(T), nil
        }
+       log.Errorf("w: miss for key %s", key)

        res, err := cb()
        // We don't cache errors

And with the same QA process as #32295
We can see the logs:

2024-12-19 09:59:01 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:02 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:02 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:06 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:07 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:95 in ]) | w: miss for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:10 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:12 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py
2024-12-19 09:59:14 UTC | TRACE | ERROR | (pkg/util/cache/cache.go:92 in ]) | w: hit for key agent/remoteTagger/container_id/7c61e76f-5e3c-4989-b479-b977dd9cfe48/dd-trace-py

And that we still have the traces correctly tagged:
image

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

N/A

Additional Notes

N/A

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Go Package Import Differences

Baseline: 1aa7a6f
Comparison: 8c21d2c

binaryosarchchange
trace-agentlinuxamd64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache
trace-agentlinuxarm64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache
trace-agentwindowsamd64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache
trace-agentdarwinamd64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache
trace-agentdarwinarm64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache
heroku-trace-agentlinuxamd64
+1, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/util/cache

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=51723967 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 8c21d2c

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 1aa7a6f7439162fc1d7a28edb1bfed8d6800156c

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.21MB ⚠️ 505.07MB 504.86MB 70.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.21MB ⚠️ 1197.36MB 1197.15MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.21MB ⚠️ 1197.36MB 1197.15MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.21MB ⚠️ 943.32MB 943.11MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.20MB ⚠️ 1188.09MB 1187.89MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.20MB ⚠️ 934.08MB 933.87MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.01MB ⚠️ 108.80MB 108.79MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.01MB ⚠️ 108.87MB 108.86MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 113.32MB 113.32MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 113.39MB 113.39MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 113.39MB 113.39MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 78.57MB 78.57MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 78.64MB 78.64MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 78.64MB 78.64MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 55.77MB 55.77MB 10.00MB

Decision

⚠️ Warning

@wdhif wdhif added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Dec 18, 2024
@wdhif wdhif force-pushed the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch from 6bfd3b9 to 0eedc89 Compare December 19, 2024 09:58
@github-actions github-actions bot added short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly and removed medium review PR review might take time labels Dec 19, 2024
@wdhif wdhif force-pushed the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch 2 times, most recently from 9bc0515 to a9a05e8 Compare December 19, 2024 14:53
@wdhif wdhif marked this pull request as ready for review December 19, 2024 15:50
@wdhif wdhif requested review from a team as code owners December 19, 2024 15:50
@wdhif wdhif requested a review from dustmop December 19, 2024 15:50
Copy link
Contributor

@jeremy-hanna jeremy-hanna left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@DataDog DataDog deleted a comment from cit-pr-commenter bot Dec 19, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Dec 19, 2024
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com>
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com>
…Interval

Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com>
@wdhif wdhif force-pushed the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch from a9a05e8 to 75b9ade Compare December 20, 2024 09:59
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: b64a3e68-26b1-4331-89fe-8e10c136ad94

Baseline: 1aa7a6f
Comparison: 8c21d2c
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 +1.16 [+0.48, +1.84] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.87 [+0.74, +1.00] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.85 [-2.41, +4.10] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.25 [+0.21, +0.29] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.23 [-0.55, +1.01] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.22 [+0.14, +0.30] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.17 [+0.11, +0.23] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.12 [-0.77, +1.00] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.10 [-0.62, +0.81] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.63, +0.66] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.11, +0.13] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.01 [-0.84, +0.81] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.91, +0.87] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.52 [-0.98, -0.06] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.65 [-1.34, +0.03] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.71 [-1.50, +0.08] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 8/10 bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 9/10 bounds checks dashboard
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 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_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

Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.

  • 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: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 8/10 replicas passed. Failed 2 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.

Copy link
Contributor

@gabedos gabedos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Unfortunate we couldn't extract the callback func out.

@wdhif wdhif added the team/container-platform The Container Platform Team label Dec 20, 2024
@wdhif
Copy link
Member Author

wdhif commented Dec 23, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-23 09:51:20 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2024-12-23 13:51:22 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

@wdhif wdhif force-pushed the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch 2 times, most recently from 07cddfb to 28cb4e2 Compare December 23, 2024 10:32
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com>
@wdhif wdhif force-pushed the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch from 28cb4e2 to 8c21d2c Compare December 23, 2024 10:51
@wdhif
Copy link
Member Author

wdhif commented Dec 23, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-23 14:17:19 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 35m.


2024-12-23 14:51:24 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit e9e9a26 into main Dec 23, 2024
231 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the CONTP-15/wassim.dhif/external-data-caching branch December 23, 2024 14:51
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.62.0 milestone Dec 23, 2024
louis-cqrl pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 25, 2024
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <wassim.dhif@datadoghq.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-shared-components team/container-platform The Container Platform Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants