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

fix: ignore vsock related failure metrics #4851

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 15, 2024

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Oct 15, 2024

These metrics trigger spuriously, as iperf-vsock does not cleanly shutdown vsock connections at the end of a performance run, resulting in Firecracker occasionally observing closed sockets. See also stefano-garzarella/iperf-vsock#4

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • The description of changes is clear and encompassing.
  • Any required documentation changes (code and docs) are included in this
    PR.
  • API changes follow the Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • User-facing changes are mentioned in CHANGELOG.md.
  • All added/changed functionality is tested.
  • New TODOs link to an issue.
  • Commits meet
    contribution quality standards.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

These metrics trigger spuriously, as iperf-vsock does not cleanly
shutdown vsock connections at the end of a performance run, resulting in
Firecracker occasionally observing incorrectly shut down sockets.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <roypat@amazon.co.uk>
@roypat roypat force-pushed the vsock-metric-ignore branch from 0e0db63 to 9364472 Compare October 15, 2024 10:47
@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Oct 15, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@bchalios bchalios left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, but how have you tested that this works?

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.01%. Comparing base (df82a41) to head (0f431d8).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4851   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.01%   84.01%           
=======================================
  Files         251      251           
  Lines       28019    28019           
=======================================
  Hits        23541    23541           
  Misses       4478     4478           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.64% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m5n.metal 84.62% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 83.93% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 84.61% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 84.64% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 84.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 83.92% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 84.61% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@roypat
Copy link
Contributor Author

roypat commented Oct 15, 2024

LGTM, but how have you tested that this works?

I kinda just put a flattened_metrics["fc_metrics.vsock.rx_read_fails"] = 1 into the function and ran the test to observe it not failing

@roypat roypat merged commit 7fc9270 into firecracker-microvm:main Oct 15, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants