tektoncd
feat: remove the for-loop and use linux event watcher to monitor file…
… change which could avoid a lot of CPU waste.
Changes
modify the behavior of detecting files through for-loop to use filesystem event watcher, which can avoid a lot of waste of CPU resources
/kind bug
Submitter Checklist
As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:
- [ ] Has Docs if any changes are user facing, including updates to minimum requirements e.g. Kubernetes version bumps
- [x] Has Tests included if any functionality added or changed
- [x] pre-commit Passed
- [x] Follows the commit message standard
- [x] Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including functionality, content, code)
- [x] Has a kind label. You can add one by adding a comment on this PR that contains
/kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tep - [ ] Release notes block below has been updated with any user facing changes (API changes, bug fixes, changes requiring upgrade notices or deprecation warnings). See some examples of good release notes.
- [ ] Release notes contains the string "action required" if the change requires additional action from users switching to the new release
Release Notes
NONE
![linux-foundation-easycla[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/17893?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign vdemeester after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @vdemeester in a comment when ready.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
Hi @Pangjiping. Thanks for your PR.
I'm waiting for a tektoncd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.
Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.
I understand the commands that are listed here.
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 kubernetes/test-infra repository.
related to issue #7293
In fact, we fully enabled sidecarlogresults in our large production environment (about 2 million taskruns per week), but after running for a period of time, we found a sharp increase in CPU usage. After troubleshooting, it was found that the implementation of sidecarlogresults had certain bug. I have fixed the problem and have been running safely in the production environment for three months. @jerop
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report
| File | Old Coverage | New Coverage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| internal/sidecarlogresults/sidecarlogresults.go | 87.9% | 82.2% | -5.8 |
related to issue #7293
In fact, we fully enabled sidecarlogresults in our large production environment (about 2 million taskruns per week), but after running for a period of time, we found a sharp increase in CPU usage. After troubleshooting, it was found that the implementation of sidecarlogresults had certain bug. I have fixed the problem and have been running safely in the production environment for three months. @jerop
That's amazing! Thanks for the fix. I'll review it promptly.
related to issue #7293 In fact, we fully enabled sidecarlogresults in our large production environment (about 2 million taskruns per week), but after running for a period of time, we found a sharp increase in CPU usage. After troubleshooting, it was found that the implementation of sidecarlogresults had certain bug. I have fixed the problem and have been running safely in the production environment for three months. @jerop
That's amazing! Thanks for the fix. I'll review it promptly.
LGTM mostly. Any way we can bump the coverage? I see a significant portion of untested code. If we can do that via unit tests, that is great. If not, we should at least add some e2e tests.
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report
| File | Old Coverage | New Coverage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| internal/sidecarlogresults/sidecarlogresults.go | 87.9% | 82.2% | -5.8 |
@Pangjiping: PR needs rebase.
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 kubernetes/test-infra repository.
@Pangjiping I'm moving this to the next release milestone unless you have time to resolve the comments and merge conflicts soon. Please let us know.
@Pangjiping: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests | 490ac8a312a77e69a6342bd1000a99a8d75c3acd | link | true | /test pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.
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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.
The following Tekton test failed:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df | 490ac8a312a77e69a6342bd1000a99a8d75c3acd | link | true | /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df |