-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 282
[process] Add requirement levels to attribute refs #3107
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
Open
braydonk
wants to merge
3
commits into
open-telemetry:main
Choose a base branch
from
braydonk:process_req_levels
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | ||
| # Use this changelog template to create an entry for release notes. | ||
| # | ||
| # If your change doesn't affect end users you should instead start | ||
| # your pull request title with [chore] or use the "Skip Changelog" label. | ||
|
|
||
| # One of 'breaking', 'deprecation', 'new_component', 'enhancement', 'bug_fix' | ||
| change_type: enhancement | ||
|
|
||
| # The name of the area of concern in the attributes-registry, (e.g. http, cloud, db) | ||
| component: process | ||
|
|
||
| # A brief description of the change. Surround your text with quotes ("") if it needs to start with a backtick (`). | ||
| note: Added specific requirement levels to all attribute refs within process metrics. | ||
|
|
||
| # Mandatory: One or more tracking issues related to the change. You can use the PR number here if no issue exists. | ||
| # The values here must be integers. | ||
| issues: [864] | ||
|
|
||
| # (Optional) One or more lines of additional information to render under the primary note. | ||
| # These lines will be padded with 2 spaces and then inserted directly into the document. | ||
| # Use pipe (|) for multiline entries. | ||
| subtext: |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Given the description (data points with no
modelabels, or only data points withmodelabels.), should this be conditionally required?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.
Does it make sense to aggregate
process.cpu.timeovercpu.mode(data points with no mode labels)? I think that should be equal to theprocess.uptimemetric, making the aggregation not recommended (attribute required)?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.
So I actually don't know if I agree with the brief here; I'm not sure at what point we would ever recommend recording CPU times without a cpu mode. I don't think we have any unambiguous way to report that. A
process.cpu.timemetric without the mode in my eyes could be one of two things:process.uptimeas @rogercoll mentioned)user+systemwithwaitstate ignored1 is generally not useful and I think we would recommend against doing it as it could be easily misinterpreted; a dashboard interpreting a "cpu time" metric that is aggregated in this way could make it look like a process is literally operating on a CPU at all times.
I could see 2 being useful somehow.
The problem then is the ambiguity of these two scenarios; a
process.cpu.timemetric reported without acpu.modehas no way to encode which of these 2 versions of the metric being reported are actually being used. The way to disambiguate a scenario that allows the second scenario to exist would just be to report acpu.modeattribute, defeating the purpose of ever reporting without the attribute. We could try and write some kind of guidance that says if you report without an attribute then what you mean is all non-waittime of the process, but that also has usability concerns because if a process is truly using all wall clock seconds to operate on the CPU, it is much easier to know unambiguously that this is the case if you also report awaitstate with a value of 0.Also in spite of all of this, scenario 2 is better served by a query-time aggregation anyway; if instrumentation aggregated all non-
waitstates at collection time you'd never be able to split that out again. (this is a similar scenario to utilization metrics erasing important time information because of collection-time aggregation).Hopefully my rant is clear enough. All of this is to say that I believe the attribute should remain
required, and we should adjust the brief to not suggest that we ever want this metric reported without acpu.mode. How does that sound @open-telemetry/semconv-system-approvers ?