Skip to content

fix(cws): read the Node.js record slot offset from the discovery struct - #57373

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
daniel.mercier/node-span
Oct 2, 2026
Merged

gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
daniel.mercier/node-span

Conversation

@danielmercier

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Reads the JSObject record slot offset from the per-thread otel_thread_ctx_nodejs_v1 discovery struct, instead of hardcoding it, and drops the unused offset attributes from the test writer.

Motivation

The offset is 24 bytes on Node.js 22 and 32 on Node.js 23+, so the writer now publishes it per thread (DataDog/pprof-nodejs#421).

The Node.js writer now publishes the JSObject record slot offset per thread, since it differs between Node.js 22 and 23+.
@danielmercier danielmercier added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Oct 2, 2026
@dd-octo-sts dd-octo-sts Bot added internal Identify a non-fork PR team/agent-security labels Oct 2, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the medium review PR review might take time label Oct 2, 2026

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AI review by Codex (OpenAI) - workflow run

The patch is correct. The reader uses the per-thread record slot offset, and the updated discovery struct preserves its size and field alignment. No actionable regressions found. The C fixture passes syntax checking; runtime tests were not run, and offset 32 lacks fixture coverage.

@danielmercier danielmercier added backport/7.85.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.85.x branch once the PR is merged and removed backport/7.85.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.85.x branch once the PR is merged labels Oct 2, 2026
@danielmercier
danielmercier marked this pull request as ready for review October 2, 2026 07:09
@danielmercier
danielmercier requested a review from a team as a code owner October 2, 2026 07:09

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AI review by Codex (OpenAI) - workflow run

The patch is correct. The reader now uses the per-thread record slot offset, and the C layout, Go serialization, and test writer remain consistent. No actionable issues found. Validation was limited to code inspection; tests were not run.

@datadog-datadog-us1-prod

datadog-datadog-us1-prod Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 58.39% (+0.00%)

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: b529f8d | Docs | Give us feedback!

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Oct 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor 1f15fe99:

Results for datadog-agent_7.85.0~devel.git.948.b529f8d.pipeline.141855656-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.85.0~devel.git.948.b529f8d.pipeline.141855656-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Oct 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor 1f15fe9
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

33 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
Quality gate Current Size
✅ agent_deb_amd64 774.785 MiB
✅ agent_deb_amd64_fips 707.893 MiB
✅ agent_heroku_amd64 319.059 MiB
✅ agent_msi 652.989 MiB
✅ agent_rpm_amd64 774.769 MiB
✅ agent_rpm_amd64_fips 707.877 MiB
✅ agent_rpm_arm64 745.630 MiB
✅ agent_rpm_arm64_fips 684.291 MiB
✅ agent_suse_amd64 774.769 MiB
✅ agent_suse_amd64_fips 707.877 MiB
✅ agent_suse_arm64 745.630 MiB
✅ agent_suse_arm64_fips 684.291 MiB
✅ docker_agent_amd64 831.016 MiB
✅ docker_agent_arm64 826.500 MiB
✅ docker_agent_jmx_amd64 1021.886 MiB
✅ docker_agent_jmx_arm64 1006.150 MiB
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 7.439 MiB
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 6.877 MiB
✅ docker_dogstatsd_amd64 39.468 MiB
✅ docker_dogstatsd_arm64 37.566 MiB
✅ docker_host_profiler_amd64 308.220 MiB
✅ docker_host_profiler_arm64 319.382 MiB
✅ dogstatsd_deb_amd64 30.214 MiB
✅ dogstatsd_deb_arm64 28.222 MiB
✅ dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 30.214 MiB
✅ dogstatsd_suse_amd64 30.214 MiB
✅ iot_agent_deb_amd64 46.785 MiB
✅ iot_agent_deb_arm64 43.391 MiB
✅ iot_agent_deb_armhf 44.218 MiB
✅ iot_agent_rpm_amd64 46.786 MiB
✅ iot_agent_suse_amd64 46.785 MiB
✅ docker_cluster_agent_amd64 213.208 MiB
✅ docker_cluster_agent_arm64 226.161 MiB

@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da

cit-pr-commenter-54b7da Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Job ID: 4ef3adce-29b7-44e3-90d2-cdbbf425537b

Baseline: f4c89a9
Comparison: 8ccaee6
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
➖ dsd_uds_10mb_3k_timestamped_contexts_cpu % cpu utilization +1.25 [+1.02, +1.48] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +1.16 [+0.93, +1.39] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ dsd_uds_10mb_3k_timestamped_contexts_memory memory utilization +0.82 [+0.59, +1.05] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory utilization +0.22 [+0.17, +0.26] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.20 [+0.13, +0.28] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ python_openmetrics % cpu utilization +0.11 [-0.57, +0.79] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.06 [-0.10, -0.01] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_security_idle memory utilization -0.09 [-0.13, -0.05] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_private_action_runner memory utilization -0.39 [-0.52, -0.27] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory utilization -0.41 [-0.47, -0.34] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -1.11 [-1.96, -0.26] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ dsd_uds_client_drop_detector_cpu % cpu utilization -1.70 [-2.20, -1.20] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
✅ python_openmetrics checks_execution_time 10/10 81.15 ≤ 100 bounds checks dashboard
✅ python_openmetrics cpu_usage 10/10 1332.34 ≤ 1500 bounds checks dashboard
✅ python_openmetrics memory_usage 10/10 4.33GiB ≤ 4.75GiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 4 ≤ 5 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 174.02MiB ≤ 181MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle total_bytes_received 10/10 755.30KiB ≤ 819.20KiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 2 ≤ 5 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 471.29MiB ≤ 542MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle_all_features total_bytes_received 10/10 1.13MiB ≤ 1.25MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 20 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 212.99MiB ≤ 228MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 263.12MiB ≤ 292MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 366.31 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 18 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 453.62MiB ≤ 455MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_metrics_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_metrics_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_private_action_runner memory_usage 10/10 73.39MiB ≤ 75MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_idle cpu_usage 10/10 29.66 ≤ 100 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_idle memory_usage 10/10 324.42MiB ≤ 357MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 65.27 ≤ 200 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 311.68MiB ≤ 337MiB bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_no_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 24.35 ≤ 100 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 311.60MiB ≤ 348MiB bounds checks dashboard

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@danielmercier danielmercier added the backport/7.85.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.85.x branch once the PR is merged label Oct 2, 2026
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 8ccaee6 into main Oct 2, 2026
502 of 514 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the daniel.mercier/node-span branch October 2, 2026 14:21
@temporal-github-worker-1

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport evaluation: View Slack thread

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport/7.85.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.85.x branch once the PR is merged changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed component/system-probe internal Identify a non-fork PR medium review PR review might take time qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation team/agent-security

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants