Fix segmentation fault in Ingester.LabelValues response marshaling #8003
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Did you conclude against a custom gRPC codec, then? |
|
Yeah, if it is unlikely to degrade things, then the decreased fiddly-ness and complexity of this fix seems preferable to me. |
pstibrany
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2024
aknuds1
requested changes
Apr 30, 2024
Co-authored-by: Arve Knudsen <arve.knudsen@gmail.com>
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What this PR does
This PR fixes a segmentation fault (see #7897) that happens when ongoing compaction in the ingester unmaps an index file that an in-flight
Ingester.LabelValuesresponse hasn't yet marshaled.I am doing the simplest thing here which is to make a copy of all of the label value strings.
I did some analysis on the
Ingester.LabelValuesusage we see. Some ingester pods do see ~200 RPS of LabelValues invocations. The vast majority of calls are in the smaller response sizes. But, we do some some regular periodic LabelValues calls where the response is >25mb. (And sometimes >250mb.) These larger ones are just a few times per minute when they do happen, so I suspect it won't be problematic. But I welcome additional points of view.Which issue(s) this PR fixes or relates to
Fixes #7897
Checklist
CHANGELOG.mdupdated - the order of entries should be[CHANGE],[FEATURE],[ENHANCEMENT],[BUGFIX].about-versioning.mdupdated with experimental features.