-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 891
fix: Bump up workspace history timeout #149
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
Merged
bryphe-coder
merged 1 commit into
provisionerdaemon
from
bryphe/provisionerdaemon/bump-timeouts
Feb 3, 2022
Merged
fix: Bump up workspace history timeout #149
bryphe-coder
merged 1 commit into
provisionerdaemon
from
bryphe/provisionerdaemon/bump-timeouts
Feb 3, 2022
Conversation
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## provisionerdaemon #149 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 66.94% 67.47% +0.52%
=====================================================
Files 101 101
Lines 5098 5098
Branches 68 68
=====================================================
+ Hits 3413 3440 +27
+ Misses 1370 1348 -22
+ Partials 315 310 -5
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
kylecarbs
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2022
kylecarbs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
* feat: Add history middleware parameters These will be used for streaming logs, checking status, and other operations related to workspace and project history. * refactor: Move all HTTP routes to top-level struct Nesting all structs behind their respective structures is leaky, and promotes naming conflicts between handlers. Our HTTP routes cannot have conflicts, so neither should function naming. * Add provisioner daemon routes * Add periodic updates * Skip pubsub if short * Return jobs with WorkspaceHistory * Add endpoints for extracting singular history * The full end-to-end operation works * fix: Disable compression for websocket dRPC transport (#145) There is a race condition in the interop between the websocket and `dRPC`: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5038545709?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:117 - it seems both the websocket and dRPC feel like they own the `byte[]` being sent between them. This can lead to data races, in which both `dRPC` and the websocket are writing. This is just tracking some experimentation to fix that race condition ## Run results: ## - Run 1: peer test failure - Run 2: peer test failure - Run 3: `TestWorkspaceHistory/CreateHistory` - https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5040858460?check_suite_focus=true#step:8:45 ``` status code 412: The provided project history is running. Wait for it to complete importing!` ``` - Run 4: `TestWorkspaceHistory/CreateHistory` - https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5040957999?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:176 ``` workspacehistory_test.go:122: Error Trace: workspacehistory_test.go:122 Error: Condition never satisfied Test: TestWorkspaceHistory/CreateHistory ``` - Run 5: peer failure - Run 6: Pass ✅ - Run 7: Peer failure ## Open Questions: ## ### Is `dRPC` or `websocket` at fault for the data race? It looks like this condition is specifically happening when `dRPC` decides to [`SendError`]). This constructs a new byte payload from [`MarshalError`](https://github.com/storj/drpc/blob/f6e369438f636b47ee788095d3fc13062ffbd019/drpcwire/error.go#L15) - so `dRPC` has created this buffer and owns it. From `dRPC`'s perspective, the callstack looks like this: - [`sendPacket`](https://github.com/storj/drpc/blob/f6e369438f636b47ee788095d3fc13062ffbd019/drpcstream/stream.go#L253) - [`writeFrame`](https://github.com/storj/drpc/blob/f6e369438f636b47ee788095d3fc13062ffbd019/drpcwire/writer.go#L65) - [`AppendFrame`](https://github.com/storj/drpc/blob/f6e369438f636b47ee788095d3fc13062ffbd019/drpcwire/packet.go#L128) - with finally the data race happening here: ```go // AppendFrame appends a marshaled form of the frame to the provided buffer. func AppendFrame(buf []byte, fr Frame) []byte { ... out := buf out = append(out, control). // <--------- ``` This should be fine, since `dPRC` create this buffer, and is taking the byte buffer constructed from `MarshalError` and tacking a bunch of headers on it to create a proper frame. Once `dRPC` is done writing, it _hangs onto the buffer and resets it here__: https://github.com/storj/drpc/blob/f6e369438f636b47ee788095d3fc13062ffbd019/drpcwire/writer.go#L73 However... the websocket implementation, once it gets the buffer, it runs a `statelessDeflate` [here](https://github.com/nhooyr/websocket/blob/8dee580a7f74cf1713400307b4eee514b927870f/write.go#L180), which compresses the buffer on the fly. This functionality actually [mutates the buffer in place](https://github.com/klauspost/compress/blob/a1a9cfc821f00faf2f5231beaa96244344d50391/flate/stateless.go#L94), which is where get our race. In the case where the `byte[]` aren't being manipulated anywhere else, this compress-in-place operation would be safe, and that's probably the case for most over-the-wire usages. In this case, though, where we're plumbing `dRPC` -> websocket, they both are manipulating it (`dRPC` is reusing the buffer for the next `write`, and `websocket` is compressing on the fly). ### Why does cloning on `Read` fail? Get a bunch of errors like: ``` 2022/02/02 19:26:10 [WARN] yamux: frame for missing stream: Vsn:0 Type:0 Flags:0 StreamID:0 Length:0 2022/02/02 19:26:25 [ERR] yamux: Failed to read header: unexpected EOF 2022/02/02 19:26:25 [ERR] yamux: Failed to read header: unexpected EOF 2022/02/02 19:26:25 [WARN] yamux: frame for missing stream: Vsn:0 Type:0 Flags:0 StreamID:0 Length:0 ``` # UPDATE: We decided we could disable websocket compression, which would avoid the race because the in-place `deflate` operaton would no longer be run. Trying that out now: - Run 1: ✅ - Run 2: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5042645522?check_suite_focus=true#step:8:338 - Run 3: ✅ - Run 4: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5042988758?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:168 - Run 5: ✅ * fix: Remove race condition with acquiredJobDone channel (#148) Found another data race while running the tests: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5044320845?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:83 __Issue:__ There is a race in the p.acquiredJobDone chan - in particular, there can be a case where we're waiting on the channel to finish (in close) with <-p.acquiredJobDone, but in parallel, an acquireJob could've been started, which would create a new channel for p.acquiredJobDone. There is a similar race in `close(..)`ing the channel, which also came up in test runs. __Fix:__ Instead of recreating the channel everytime, we can use `sync.WaitGroup` to accomplish the same functionality - a semaphore to make close wait for the current job to wrap up. * fix: Bump up workspace history timeout (#149) This is an attempted fix for failures like: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5043435263?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:32 Looking at the timing of the test: ``` t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:21.964 [DEBUG] (terraform-provisioner) <provision.go:139> ran apply t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:21.991 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:22.050 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:22.090 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:22.140 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:22.195 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running t.go:56: 2022-02-02 21:33:22.240 [DEBUG] (provisionerd) <provisionerd.go:162> skipping acquire; job is already running workspacehistory_test.go:122: Error Trace: workspacehistory_test.go:122 Error: Condition never satisfied Test: TestWorkspaceHistory/CreateHistory ``` It appears that the `terraform apply` job had just finished - with less than a second to spare until our `require.Eventually` completes - but there's still work to be done (ie, collecting the state files). So my suspicion is that terraform might, in some cases, exceed our 5s timeout. Note that in the setup for this test - there is a similar project history wait that waits for 15s, so I borrowed that here. In the future - we can look at potentially using a simple echo provider to exercise this in the unit test, in a way that is more reliable in terms of timing. I'll log an issue to track that. Co-authored-by: Bryan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is an attempted fix for failures like: https://github.com/coder/coder/runs/5043435263?check_suite_focus=true#step:7:32
Looking at the timing of the test:
It appears that the
terraform apply
job had just finished - with less than a second to spare until ourrequire.Eventually
completes - but there's still work to be done (ie, collecting the state files). So my suspicion is that terraform might, in some cases, exceed our 5s timeout.Note that in the setup for this test - there is a similar project history wait that waits for 15s, so I borrowed that here.
In the future - we can look at potentially using a simple echo provider to exercise this in the unit test, in a way that is more reliable in terms of timing. I'll log an issue to track that.