Cleanup: mark deprecating for inconstant metric label #1294
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FouoF 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 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @FouoF, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses an issue with Prometheus metrics where inconstant labels lead to an explosion of time series. It deprecates problematic labels in existing metrics and introduces new, separate metrics to capture the information previously conveyed by those labels, ensuring more stable and efficient metric collection for GPU and container memory usage.
Highlights
- Metric Label Deprecation (Scheduler): The 'devicecores' label in the 'GPUDeviceMemoryAllocated' and 'nodeGPUOverview' metrics is now marked for deprecation.
- Metric Label Deprecation (vGPUmonitor): The 'context', 'module', 'data', and 'offset' labels in the 'Device_memory_desc_of_container' metric are now marked for deprecation.
- New Metrics for Deprecated Labels: New, dedicated metrics ('Device_memory_context_of_container', 'Device_memory_module_of_container', 'Device_memory_data_of_container', and 'Device_memory_data_of_container' for offset) have been introduced to replace the deprecated labels for container device memory, providing more stable time series.
- Metric Type Correction: The metric type for 'Device_memory_desc_of_container' has been corrected from a Counter to a Gauge, which is more appropriate for representing current memory values.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
FouoF
force-pushed
the
refactor-metrics
branch
from
0f3c777 to
ff26a37
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request addresses an important issue of high-cardinality labels in Prometheus metrics by deprecating them and introducing new, more stable metrics. The approach is sound. I've found a couple of issues in the implementation: a typo in a metric description, and a copy-paste error in a new metric definition that would cause a conflict. I've also suggested a small refactoring to reduce code repetition when sending the new metrics. Please see the detailed comments.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
FouoF
force-pushed
the
refactor-metrics
branch
from
fa30799 to
e857165
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jifei Wang <[email protected]>
FouoF
force-pushed
the
refactor-metrics
branch
from
e857165 to
72da3e7
Compare
|
CC @archlitchi |
CC @archlitchi |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind deprecation
What this PR does / why we need it:
Some metrics contain inconstant label to export values in current implementation, resulting in inconstant time series
in prometheus for sample with different labels will be treated as a new metric. This pr plan to remove these labels and add new metrics to replace them.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
User should be noticed the deprecation of these labels and be guided to use new metrics.