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

eBPF plugin improvements #1277

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 13, 2016
Merged

eBPF plugin improvements #1277

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 13, 2016

Conversation

2opremio
Copy link
Contributor

  • Check that the protocol is TCP
  • Support all HTTP methods
  • Clear out tasks from table when they exit (required using task ids as table
    keys). A nice side effect of this is that we can tell apart tasks receiving 0
    req/second (i.e. tasks which currently aren't receiving any requests but were
    receiving requests at some point) from tasks which don't exist anymore.
    We report metrics fro the former.
  • Simplify hash table key (no need to use a struct)

@paulbellamy @tomwilkie (and @dpw if he has the time) PTAL

@2opremio 2opremio force-pushed the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch 3 times, most recently from da24b89 to 6cf57f0 Compare April 13, 2016 03:25
* Check that the protocol is TCP
* Support all HTTP methods
* Clear out tasks from table when they exit (required using task ids as table
  keys). A nice side effect of this is that we can tell apart tasks receiving 0
  req/second (i.e. tasks which currently aren't receiving any requests but were
  receiving requests at some point) from tasks which don't exist anymore.
  We report metrics fro the former.
* Simplify hash table key (no need to use a struct)
@2opremio 2opremio force-pushed the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch from 6cf57f0 to c838350 Compare April 13, 2016 04:23
@paulbellamy
Copy link
Contributor

afaict, looks fine.

@dpw
Copy link

dpw commented Apr 13, 2016

This approach has some major flaws if people try to make serious use of it . We discussed them the other day, so I won't go into details. I see it's in an "examples" directory, so maybe we don't intend people to use it seriously. If so , I hope the context makes its status clear.

@2opremio
Copy link
Contributor Author

This approach has some major flaws if people try to make serious use of it . We discussed them the other day, so I won't go into details.

Does the Caveats comment in the ebpf code reflect that correctly?

@2opremio 2opremio force-pushed the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch 2 times, most recently from cbc6d33 to 42226ac Compare April 13, 2016 10:49
@dpw
Copy link

dpw commented Apr 13, 2016

Does the Caveats comment in the ebpf code reflect that correctly?

Yes. But very few people will look at comments in the code.

It's a question of context. So for example, if people have to build the examples themselves, it's fine.

@2opremio 2opremio force-pushed the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch 2 times, most recently from e36a798 to 7405a03 Compare April 13, 2016 11:17
@2opremio 2opremio force-pushed the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch from 7405a03 to ef94818 Compare April 13, 2016 11:19
@2opremio
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's a question of context. So for example, if people have to build the examples themselves, it's fine.

Right. As you mentioned though, it's in the examples directory so I think it's fine. No code comments?

@2opremio 2opremio merged commit 151567e into master Apr 13, 2016
@2opremio 2opremio deleted the ebpf-plugin-improvements branch April 13, 2016 14:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants