NETOBSERV-1390: Flow RTT values are n/a

[msherif1234]

Description

using tcp_rcv fentry hook to reuse kernel calculated rtt directly from TCP socket instead of trying to calculate it

Testing

• verified changes with 4.16 image (RHEL9)
• verified changes with 4.12 image (RHEL8)
• run on different arch than amd64
  using cluster-bot launch 4.16 aws,arm64
• performance and scale run

• 4.15 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BHoBJb8Pg-SI2bVNG58_NDoIhfOLV44hTysR2zalJAY/edit#gid=1230208449

• 4.14 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sJhlmHVlEHx9ZwfOyz7tVi54c1vtrbr4cW3tdvVXfVk/edit#gid=1878726753

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1390 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

using tcp_rcv kprobe to reuse kernel calculated rtt directly from TCP socket instead of trying to calculate it

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 16 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (cd878fd) 33.62% compared to head (0095be4) 33.86%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/ebpf/tracer.go	0.00%	16 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #245      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   33.62%   33.86%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files          39       39              
  Lines        3494     3479      -15     
==========================================
+ Hits         1175     1178       +3     
+ Misses       2251     2233      -18     
  Partials       68       68              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	33.86% <20.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️

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.

[msherif1234]

main vs this PR both with RTT enabled, there is cpu increase because of kprobe processing

but its looking much better from netobserv UI as long as we filter on TCP and Ingress direction because this Ingress only feature, also w/o the need to set sampling to 1
in fact with high sampling we might not give chance for the new hook to run as often and lose rtt updates

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1390 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

using tcp_rcv kprobe and fentry hooks to reuse kernel calculated rtt directly from TCP socket instead of trying to calculate it

Testing

• verified changes with 4.16 image (RHEL9)
• verified changes with 4.12 image (RHEL8)
• run on different arch than amd64
  using cluster-bot launch 4.16 aws,arm64
• performance and scale run

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:fe0d62f

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=fe0d62f make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:bc220e5

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=bc220e5 make set-agent-image

[jotak]

/lgtm

[Amoghrd]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1390 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target either version "4.16." or "openshift-4.16.", but it targets "netobserv-1.5" instead.

In response to this:

Description

using tcp_rcv kprobe and fentry hooks to reuse kernel calculated rtt directly from TCP socket instead of trying to calculate it

Testing

• verified changes with 4.16 image (RHEL9)
• verified changes with 4.12 image (RHEL8)
• run on different arch than amd64
  using cluster-bot launch 4.16 aws,arm64
• performance and scale run

• 4.15 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BHoBJb8Pg-SI2bVNG58_NDoIhfOLV44hTysR2zalJAY/edit#gid=1230208449

• 4.14 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sJhlmHVlEHx9ZwfOyz7tVi54c1vtrbr4cW3tdvVXfVk/edit#gid=1878726753

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1390 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target either version "4.16." or "openshift-4.16.", but it targets "netobserv-1.5" instead.

In response to this:

Description

using tcp_rcv fentry hook to reuse kernel calculated rtt directly from TCP socket instead of trying to calculate it

Testing

• verified changes with 4.16 image (RHEL9)
• verified changes with 4.12 image (RHEL8)
• run on different arch than amd64
  using cluster-bot launch 4.16 aws,arm64
• performance and scale run

• 4.15 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BHoBJb8Pg-SI2bVNG58_NDoIhfOLV44hTysR2zalJAY/edit#gid=1230208449

• 4.14 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sJhlmHVlEHx9ZwfOyz7tVi54c1vtrbr4cW3tdvVXfVk/edit#gid=1878726753

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[msherif1234]

removed kprobe and just stayed with fentry only which more advanced kprobe and light weight also no need for additional complexity for no real reason

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:2639b26

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=2639b26 make set-agent-image

[Amoghrd]

Works as expected with latest commits.

[jotak]

/lgtm

[msherif1234]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: msherif1234

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [msherif1234]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment