-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 912
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
Check keepalive first, and throttle try_pop #1237
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Chris Meyer <scallopboat@gmail.com>
Welcome @scallopboat! It looks like this is your first PR to falcosecurity/falco 🎉 |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/assign @mstemm |
Thanks a lot for showing us this approach @scallopboat @leodido and I are trying to change the server architecture a little bit to avoid the try_pop in a while loop situation at all, it that doesn't land the solution here is probably the best we can do short-term as you suggested. Here's the motivation: #1240 We still need to plot some gperftools and gprof graphs. Let's see how it goes! |
Hey @scallopboat thanks a lot for submitting this, I really appreciated it! 🙏 Anyways PR #1241 is ready to be merged in and it shows serious improvements reducing the CPU consumption when gRPC Falco Outputs are on. Thus we'll close this in favor of that PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for trying out this approach!
We rewrote a part of the gRPC server to gain performances in PR #1241
Signed-off-by: Chris Meyer scallopboat@gmail.com
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area engine
What this PR does / why we need it:
Reduces the CPU usage of falco when the grpc server is enabled to ~15%.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1126
Special notes for your reviewer:
Submitted as a potential (short term?) fix. It'd likely be better to refactor such that a sleep isn't needed by using a local queue as suggested on 05-20-20 call, but wanted to submit this option regardless.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
NONE