Skip to content

[Serverless-Init] Cloud Run Jobs Inferred Span#43371

Merged
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 19 commits into
mainfrom
nicholas.hulston/cloud-run-jobs-inferred-span
Nov 25, 2025
Merged

[Serverless-Init] Cloud Run Jobs Inferred Span#43371
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 19 commits into
mainfrom
nicholas.hulston/cloud-run-jobs-inferred-span

Conversation

@nhulston

@nhulston nhulston commented Nov 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Create an inferred span for the duration of the task execution.
Screenshot 2025-11-21 at 4 34 44 PM
View span

And it correctly reparents spans received from the tracer (custom, autoinstrumentation, etc.)
Screenshot 2025-11-21 at 6 45 31 PM

This can be disabled with the env var DD_APM_ENABLED=false

Motivation

So traces work OOTB, no custom span creation is required from the user. This also follows the convention set by Lambda.

As an added benefit, we can get rid of the high cardinality tags on the existing enhanced metrics. Instead, we can just rely on this trace existing to display the duration of each task for a specific execution ID on the frontend. (This will be done in a future PR, and it requires frontend changes)

Describe how you validated your changes

Testing manually with a real Cloud Run Job

Additional Notes

While it's not ideal to have APM logic in the agent, there is no other way to do this. In Lambda, the tracers can instrument the Lambda handler function. But in Cloud Run Jobs, there is no such entry point to instrument. The tracer only knows it's in a container, but not that it's in a Cloud Run Job.

We have a precedent for creating spans in the agent (in the Lambda Extension), and there were no issues there.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the medium review PR review might take time label Nov 21, 2025
@nhulston nhulston added team/serverless-azure-gcp qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Nov 21, 2025
@nhulston
nhulston marked this pull request as ready for review November 21, 2025 21:48
@nhulston
nhulston requested review from a team as code owners November 21, 2025 21:48
@agent-platform-auto-pr

agent-platform-auto-pr Bot commented Nov 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor 941e380

Successful checks

Info

Quality gate Delta On disk size (MiB) Delta On wire size (MiB)
agent_deb_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${705.0}$$ < $${717.44}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${172.51}$$ < $${177.37}$$
agent_deb_amd64_fips $${-0.09}$$ $${699.05}$$ < $${711.66}$$ $${-0.04}$$ $${171.27}$$ < $${174.84}$$
agent_heroku_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${327.46}$$ < $${337.57}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${87.38}$$ < $${90.78}$$
agent_msi $${-0.09}$$ $${999.81}$$ < $${1015.38}$$ $${+0}$$ $${144.44}$$ < $${149.42}$$
agent_rpm_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${704.99}$$ < $${717.41}$$ $${-0.03}$$ $${175.73}$$ < $${178.01}$$
agent_rpm_amd64_fips $${-0.09}$$ $${699.03}$$ < $${711.64}$$ $${-0.03}$$ $${173.43}$$ < $${177.26}$$
agent_rpm_arm64 $${-0.09}$$ $${690.29}$$ < $${702.19}$$ $${-0.11}$$ $${159.54}$$ < $${163.22}$$
agent_rpm_arm64_fips $${-0.09}$$ $${685.47}$$ < $${697.6}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${158.82}$$ < $${162.68}$$
agent_suse_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${704.99}$$ < $${717.41}$$ $${-0.03}$$ $${175.73}$$ < $${178.01}$$
agent_suse_amd64_fips $${-0.09}$$ $${699.03}$$ < $${711.64}$$ $${-0.03}$$ $${173.43}$$ < $${177.26}$$
agent_suse_arm64 $${-0.09}$$ $${690.29}$$ < $${702.19}$$ $${-0.11}$$ $${159.54}$$ < $${163.22}$$
agent_suse_arm64_fips $${-0.09}$$ $${685.47}$$ < $${697.6}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${158.82}$$ < $${162.68}$$
docker_agent_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${767.38}$$ < $${769.92}$$ $${-0.02}$$ $${260.38}$$ < $${261.52}$$
docker_agent_arm64 $${-0.09}$$ $${777.03}$$ < $${779.46}$$ $${-0.02}$$ $${250.65}$$ < $${251.72}$$
docker_agent_jmx_amd64 $${-0.09}$$ $${958.25}$$ < $${960.8}$$ $${-0.02}$$ $${329.02}$$ < $${330.15}$$
docker_agent_jmx_arm64 $${-0.09}$$ $${956.63}$$ < $${958.93}$$ $${-0.03}$$ $${315.28}$$ < $${316.35}$$
docker_cluster_agent_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${179.19}$$ < $${207.49}$$ $${+0}$$ $${63.23}$$ < $${70.2}$$
docker_cluster_agent_arm64 $${0}$$ $${196.69}$$ < $${223.38}$$ $${-0}$$ $${59.97}$$ < $${66.42}$$
docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 $${0}$$ $${7.07}$$ < $${7.12}$$ $${+0}$$ $${2.95}$$ < $${3.29}$$
docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 $${0}$$ $${6.69}$$ < $${6.92}$$ $${-0}$$ $${2.7}$$ < $${3.07}$$
docker_dogstatsd_amd64 $${0}$$ $${38.54}$$ < $${39.3}$$ $${+0}$$ $${14.9}$$ < $${15.76}$$
docker_dogstatsd_arm64 $${0}$$ $${37.24}$$ < $${37.94}$$ $${0}$$ $${14.34}$$ < $${14.83}$$
dogstatsd_deb_amd64 $${0}$$ $${29.76}$$ < $${30.53}$$ $${+0}$$ $${7.86}$$ < $${8.75}$$
dogstatsd_deb_arm64 $${0}$$ $${28.28}$$ < $${29.11}$$ $${-0}$$ $${6.79}$$ < $${7.71}$$
dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 $${0}$$ $${29.76}$$ < $${30.53}$$ $${-0}$$ $${7.87}$$ < $${8.76}$$
dogstatsd_suse_amd64 $${0}$$ $${29.76}$$ < $${30.53}$$ $${-0}$$ $${7.87}$$ < $${8.76}$$
iot_agent_deb_amd64 $${0}$$ $${42.48}$$ < $${43.19}$$ $${+0}$$ $${11.09}$$ < $${11.98}$$
iot_agent_deb_arm64 $${0}$$ $${40.22}$$ < $${40.92}$$ $${+0}$$ $${9.56}$$ < $${10.45}$$
iot_agent_deb_armhf $${0}$$ $${40.13}$$ < $${40.86}$$ $${+0}$$ $${9.67}$$ < $${10.56}$$
iot_agent_rpm_amd64 $${0}$$ $${42.48}$$ < $${43.19}$$ $${-0}$$ $${11.11}$$ < $${12.0}$$
iot_agent_suse_amd64 $${0}$$ $${42.48}$$ < $${43.19}$$ $${-0}$$ $${11.11}$$ < $${12.0}$$

@cit-pr-commenter

cit-pr-commenter Bot commented Nov 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 959ff569-604e-4d7c-aa2a-40127e9d8eca

Baseline: 334d0f1
Comparison: c864f7c
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization +1.45 [-1.48, +4.39] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +4.62 [+3.10, +6.13] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization +1.45 [-1.48, +4.39] 1 Logs
docker_containers_memory memory utilization +0.71 [+0.50, +0.93] 1 Logs
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +0.57 [+0.37, +0.77] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders memory utilization +0.48 [+0.43, +0.53] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_delta memory utilization +0.40 [+0.19, +0.61] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter memory utilization +0.19 [-0.05, +0.42] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.15 [+0.10, +0.20] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.07 [-0.31, +0.45] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.38, +0.45] 1 Logs
otlp_ingest_logs memory utilization +0.02 [-0.07, +0.12] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.01 [-0.04, +0.06] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.13, +0.13] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.07, +0.08] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.00 [-0.42, +0.41] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.13, +0.13] 1 Logs
otlp_ingest_metrics memory utilization -0.04 [-0.19, +0.10] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.06 [-0.11, -0.01] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.07 [-0.11, -0.02] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
ddot_metrics memory utilization -0.46 [-0.68, -0.25] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative memory utilization -0.62 [-0.77, -0.48] 1 Logs
ddot_logs memory utilization -0.72 [-0.79, -0.66] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -1.46 [-1.53, -1.39] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
docker_containers_cpu simple_check_run 10/10
docker_containers_memory memory_usage 10/10
docker_containers_memory simple_check_run 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs lost_bytes 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, 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 memory_usage: 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added long review PR is complex, plan time to review it and removed medium review PR review might take time labels Nov 21, 2025

// initJobSpan creates and initializes the job span with Cloud Run Job metadata
func (c *CloudRunJobs) initJobSpan() {
tags := c.GetTags()

@Lewis-E Lewis-E Nov 24, 2025

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.

Since we have changes to tags planned that will result in a different set of tags for the traceService vs the logsService and metricsService, might it make sense to get span tags from the trace service? That will include configured tags and base tags as well; I don't know if you were purposefully avoiding those. It looks like the traceService has a fair bit of separate tag logic.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, once we separate the tags, that would simplify this code a bit. I'm happy to wait for that to merge and resolve conflicts in this PR, or merge this PR first and help resolve conflicts in that PR

Comment thread cmd/serverless-init/cloudservice/cloudrun_jobs_test.go
Comment thread cmd/serverless-init/cloudservice/cloudrun_jobs_test.go
Comment thread cmd/serverless-init/trace/trace_test.go

@kathiehuang kathiehuang 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.

LGTM! Just curious, did you reference the Lambda extension or anything when building out this logic?

Comment thread cmd/serverless-init/cloudservice/cloudrun_jobs.go
Comment thread cmd/serverless-init/trace/trace.go
@nhulston

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

LGTM! Just curious, did you reference the Lambda extension or anything when building out this logic?

Yes, for span creation logic, I referenced the Go version of the Lambda Extension. I looked at the commit before this PR: #42994

and I simplified/adapted the code a bit, since most of that code was several years old

@nhulston

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow-routing-codex

dd-devflow-routing-codex Bot commented Nov 25, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-11-25 19:02:18 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2025-11-25 19:02:24 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 45m (p90).


2025-11-25 19:22:49 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: Readding this merge request to the queue because another merge request processed with yours failed. No action is needed from your side.


2025-11-25 19:43:26 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue
dd-mergequeue Bot merged commit 4c7cc27 into main Nov 25, 2025
295 of 296 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue
dd-mergequeue Bot deleted the nicholas.hulston/cloud-run-jobs-inferred-span branch November 25, 2025 19:43
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.74.0 milestone Nov 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

long review PR is complex, plan time to review it qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/serverless-azure-gcp

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants