feat: process context publication by yannham · Pull Request #1585 · DataDog/libdatadog

yannham · 2026-02-17T17:25:26Z

What does this PR do?

This PR implements the publication protocol of the otel process context sharing proposal.

This is intended as a minimally viable starting point. Next steps are kept for follow-up PRs, which could include for example:

expose the additional functions in the FFI
add the missing update protocol
add a function taking a structured object and encode it, instead of assuming a raw, already encoded payload

Motivation

This feature allows a process to expose data to an external process, typically an eBPF profiler. Please refer to the OTEP linked above for a detailed motivation.

Additional Notes

Some notes on dependencies:

This PR needs a handful of linux syscalls. I used rustix for that since it's already pulled as a transitive dependency (with the same major version bucket), and is nicely higher-level than libc.
I see that there's already a small MemFd wrapper crate used (e.g here

libdatadog/libdd-library-config/src/tracer_metadata.rs

Line 54 in 0bd90fd

pub enum AnonymousFileHandle {

). Unfortunately, it doesn't handle some options like NOEXEC, and doesn't really bring much over the basic rustix wrappers, so I didn't use that (question: should we take the occasion to kill a dependency and use rustix everywhere?)

There are a number of design choices or assumptions that might be interesting to discuss further:

on paper, a reader might be concurrently reading what the process is currently publishing, which could lead to race conditions (even more since the reader is another, uncontrolled process). However, the reader doesn't access the memory directly, but use /proc/<pid>/maps and syscalls to do so, so the concurrency model is a bit unclear. We basically settled on the mental model being that we use atomics as if the reader was another thread of the same program, which sounds like the best we can do and should prevent re-ordering at least on the writer side (using OS-level sync is another solution, but was deemed too costly for the upcoming thread-level context).
we must manage the following resources: the mmaped region and the payload, avoiding either leaking them or releasing them too early (nullifying the capacity to read, or worse making it read garbage). We settled with @ivoanjo on hiding that from the API user, by using a static. We use a mutex here instead of smarter lock-free style because it's mostly to please the Rust typesystem; we don't expect publications to happen often, and it should most likely be done from the same thread. The memory is guaranteed to be preserved, but the user can still free it explicitly if needed.
Regarding the payload, there might be room to make the internal interface safer (e.g. using Pin<Box<[u8]>> ?), and maybe offer the option - or do it automatically, depending on the size - of moving the payload directly after the header, as allowed by the spec. This is left for future work.

How to test the change?

A test is included for both publish and update, with a subsequent read. Another way would be to use those functions and use any other reader implementation (e.g. in C) as a separate process.

github-actions · 2026-02-17T17:30:12Z

Clippy Allow Annotation Report

Comparing clippy allow annotations between branches:

Base Branch: origin/main
PR Branch: origin/yannham/process-context-sharing

Summary by Rule

Rule	Base Branch	PR Branch	Change

Annotation Counts by File

File	Base Branch	PR Branch	Change

Annotation Stats by Crate

Crate	Base Branch	PR Branch	Change
`clippy-annotation-reporter`	5	5	No change (0%)
`datadog-ffe-ffi`	1	1	No change (0%)
`datadog-ipc`	27	27	No change (0%)
`datadog-live-debugger`	6	6	No change (0%)
`datadog-live-debugger-ffi`	10	10	No change (0%)
`datadog-profiling-replayer`	4	4	No change (0%)
`datadog-remote-config`	3	3	No change (0%)
`datadog-sidecar`	59	59	No change (0%)
`libdd-common`	10	10	No change (0%)
`libdd-common-ffi`	12	12	No change (0%)
`libdd-crashtracker`	12	12	No change (0%)
`libdd-data-pipeline`	5	5	No change (0%)
`libdd-ddsketch`	2	2	No change (0%)
`libdd-dogstatsd-client`	1	1	No change (0%)
`libdd-profiling`	13	13	No change (0%)
`libdd-telemetry`	19	19	No change (0%)
`libdd-tinybytes`	4	4	No change (0%)
`libdd-trace-normalization`	2	2	No change (0%)
`libdd-trace-obfuscation`	9	9	No change (0%)
`libdd-trace-utils`	15	15	No change (0%)
Total	219	219	No change (0%)

About This Report

This report tracks Clippy allow annotations for specific rules, showing how they've changed in this PR. Decreasing the number of these annotations generally improves code quality.

pr-commenter · 2026-02-17T17:40:06Z

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-03-02 13:15:17

Comparing candidate commit 0af80fa in PR branch yannham/process-context-sharing with baseline commit d4c7824 in branch main.

Found 1 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 54 metrics, 2 unstable metrics.

scenario:benching serializing traces from their internal representation to msgpack

🟩 execution_time [-812.374µs; -800.127µs] or [-5.471%; -5.389%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005

🟥 execution_time [+10.317µs; +10.482µs] or [+14.136%; +14.363%]
🟥 throughput [-1721734.741op/s; -1695934.786op/s] or [-12.565%; -12.377%]

Candidate

Candidate benchmark details

Group 1

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
two way interface	execution_time	18.369µs	26.395µs ± 9.493µs	18.837µs ± 0.264µs	34.889µs	43.535µs	50.487µs	72.244µs	283.52%	1.022	1.306	35.87%	0.671µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
two way interface	execution_time	[25.079µs; 27.711µs] or [-4.984%; +4.984%]	None	None	None

Group 2

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
tags/replace_trace_tags	execution_time	2.310µs	2.377µs ± 0.013µs	2.378µs ± 0.004µs	2.382µs	2.397µs	2.403µs	2.410µs	1.32%	-1.521	5.173	0.55%	0.001µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
tags/replace_trace_tags	execution_time	[2.375µs; 2.379µs] or [-0.077%; +0.077%]	None	None	None

Group 3

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
profile_add_sample_frames_x1000	execution_time	4.151ms	4.156ms ± 0.006ms	4.156ms ± 0.001ms	4.157ms	4.160ms	4.163ms	4.240ms	2.01%	11.585	150.099	0.15%	0.000ms	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
profile_add_sample_frames_x1000	execution_time	[4.155ms; 4.157ms] or [-0.021%; +0.021%]	None	None	None

Group 4

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
redis/obfuscate_redis_string	execution_time	33.195µs	33.862µs ± 1.155µs	33.360µs ± 0.105µs	33.478µs	36.355µs	36.386µs	36.985µs	10.86%	1.689	0.916	3.40%	0.082µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
redis/obfuscate_redis_string	execution_time	[33.702µs; 34.022µs] or [-0.473%; +0.473%]	None	None	None

Group 5

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
benching string interning on wordpress profile	execution_time	162.610µs	163.077µs ± 0.345µs	162.990µs ± 0.116µs	163.147µs	163.737µs	164.591µs	164.990µs	1.23%	2.837	10.233	0.21%	0.024µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
benching string interning on wordpress profile	execution_time	[163.029µs; 163.125µs] or [-0.029%; +0.029%]	None	None	None

Group 6

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
benching deserializing traces from msgpack to their internal representation	execution_time	47.733ms	48.058ms ± 1.251ms	47.902ms ± 0.076ms	47.973ms	48.220ms	50.576ms	63.078ms	31.68%	10.215	111.582	2.60%	0.088ms	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
benching deserializing traces from msgpack to their internal representation	execution_time	[47.885ms; 48.231ms] or [-0.361%; +0.361%]	None	None	None

Group 7

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
normalization/normalize_trace/test_trace	execution_time	247.267ns	255.052ns ± 11.829ns	249.686ns ± 1.245ns	252.492ns	287.334ns	291.325ns	296.305ns	18.67%	2.092	3.057	4.63%	0.836ns	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
normalization/normalize_trace/test_trace	execution_time	[253.412ns; 256.691ns] or [-0.643%; +0.643%]	None	None	None

Group 8

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
credit_card/is_card_number/	execution_time	3.895µs	3.913µs ± 0.003µs	3.913µs ± 0.002µs	3.915µs	3.918µs	3.921µs	3.925µs	0.30%	-0.397	6.677	0.08%	0.000µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/	throughput	254781971.524op/s	255531566.048op/s ± 194650.317op/s	255538223.635op/s ± 120143.170op/s	255666620.336op/s	255769968.096op/s	255853192.350op/s	256712360.329op/s	0.46%	0.416	6.768	0.08%	13763.856op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005	execution_time	79.004µs	79.702µs ± 0.380µs	79.669µs ± 0.256µs	79.932µs	80.423µs	80.547µs	80.925µs	1.58%	0.633	-0.192	0.48%	0.027µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005	throughput	12357163.207op/s	12546959.625op/s ± 59628.538op/s	12552011.778op/s ± 40242.806op/s	12590905.590op/s	12626739.268op/s	12646378.942op/s	12657651.807op/s	0.84%	-0.613	-0.226	0.47%	4216.374op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005	execution_time	82.637µs	83.378µs ± 0.507µs	83.274µs ± 0.313µs	83.624µs	84.328µs	85.073µs	85.368µs	2.51%	1.145	1.801	0.61%	0.036µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005	throughput	11713991.191op/s	11993972.916op/s ± 72425.439op/s	12008548.887op/s ± 45255.712op/s	12042944.881op/s	12085713.392op/s	12098081.375op/s	12101160.864op/s	0.77%	-1.101	1.646	0.60%	5121.252op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631	execution_time	3.897µs	3.913µs ± 0.003µs	3.913µs ± 0.002µs	3.916µs	3.918µs	3.921µs	3.923µs	0.24%	-0.623	3.279	0.08%	0.000µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631	throughput	254917636.471op/s	255528223.351op/s ± 201128.510op/s	255526778.896op/s ± 131315.842op/s	255650030.718op/s	255835079.190op/s	255948437.454op/s	256607698.432op/s	0.42%	0.635	3.330	0.08%	14221.933op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005	execution_time	69.176µs	69.726µs ± 0.342µs	69.682µs ± 0.232µs	69.906µs	70.394µs	70.603µs	71.083µs	2.01%	0.920	0.710	0.49%	0.024µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005	throughput	14068003.557op/s	14342134.594op/s ± 70069.438op/s	14350949.187op/s ± 47970.896op/s	14399088.898op/s	14424781.631op/s	14440968.315op/s	14455864.689op/s	0.73%	-0.893	0.622	0.49%	4954.657op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798	execution_time	52.154µs	52.228µs ± 0.035µs	52.224µs ± 0.020µs	52.246µs	52.285µs	52.332µs	52.380µs	0.30%	0.864	2.073	0.07%	0.002µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798	throughput	19091201.154op/s	19147007.937op/s ± 12812.248op/s	19148152.548op/s ± 7210.011op/s	19155001.072op/s	19166254.742op/s	19170389.342op/s	19173883.254op/s	0.13%	-0.857	2.051	0.07%	905.963op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/x371413321323331	execution_time	6.027µs	6.038µs ± 0.010µs	6.035µs ± 0.003µs	6.039µs	6.069µs	6.074µs	6.114µs	1.30%	3.829	18.411	0.17%	0.001µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number/x371413321323331	throughput	163563791.458op/s	165625521.439op/s ± 280348.397op/s	165695882.459op/s ± 70009.484op/s	165760270.435op/s	165825434.508op/s	165865495.953op/s	165931424.558op/s	0.14%	-3.800	18.095	0.17%	19823.625op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/	execution_time	3.894µs	3.912µs ± 0.003µs	3.912µs ± 0.002µs	3.914µs	3.917µs	3.918µs	3.920µs	0.21%	-1.104	8.786	0.07%	0.000µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/	throughput	255079213.718op/s	255599892.545op/s ± 179609.840op/s	255619249.918op/s ± 123731.164op/s	255711717.992op/s	255819806.818op/s	255856373.802op/s	256806992.221op/s	0.46%	1.125	8.932	0.07%	12700.334op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 3782-8224-6310-005	execution_time	64.137µs	64.433µs ± 0.162µs	64.421µs ± 0.105µs	64.523µs	64.706µs	64.931µs	65.127µs	1.10%	0.828	1.423	0.25%	0.011µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 3782-8224-6310-005	throughput	15354584.603op/s	15520177.500op/s ± 38905.543op/s	15522844.481op/s ± 25386.908op/s	15549879.248op/s	15572341.189op/s	15590477.259op/s	15591739.496op/s	0.44%	-0.808	1.354	0.25%	2751.037op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005	execution_time	58.140µs	58.422µs ± 0.147µs	58.394µs ± 0.088µs	58.495µs	58.694µs	58.840µs	58.949µs	0.95%	0.803	0.638	0.25%	0.010µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005	throughput	16963802.795op/s	17117073.108op/s ± 42967.890op/s	17125101.658op/s ± 25815.277op/s	17146462.743op/s	17175322.685op/s	17190106.717op/s	17199872.721op/s	0.44%	-0.789	0.603	0.25%	3038.289op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631	execution_time	3.894µs	3.913µs ± 0.003µs	3.913µs ± 0.002µs	3.914µs	3.916µs	3.920µs	3.921µs	0.22%	-1.274	9.375	0.07%	0.000µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631	throughput	255004793.312op/s	255573781.256op/s ± 186910.062op/s	255556964.242op/s ± 107290.127op/s	255681504.876op/s	255833408.399op/s	255942169.342op/s	256831068.360op/s	0.50%	1.295	9.518	0.07%	13216.537op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005	execution_time	54.614µs	54.936µs ± 0.285µs	54.851µs ± 0.168µs	55.093µs	55.459µs	55.894µs	56.017µs	2.13%	1.321	1.697	0.52%	0.020µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005	throughput	17851646.540op/s	18203382.920op/s ± 93639.048op/s	18231361.589op/s ± 56078.898op/s	18278733.818op/s	18300782.133op/s	18308493.387op/s	18310408.099op/s	0.43%	-1.292	1.577	0.51%	6621.281op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798	execution_time	52.153µs	52.223µs ± 0.035µs	52.221µs ± 0.022µs	52.241µs	52.277µs	52.311µs	52.409µs	0.36%	1.164	3.633	0.07%	0.002µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798	throughput	19080743.445op/s	19148527.777op/s ± 12679.730op/s	19149483.663op/s ± 7972.893op/s	19157814.015op/s	19165400.990op/s	19170595.509op/s	19174509.407op/s	0.13%	-1.156	3.587	0.07%	896.592op/s	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/x371413321323331	execution_time	6.028µs	6.040µs ± 0.012µs	6.038µs ± 0.003µs	6.041µs	6.061µs	6.107µs	6.115µs	1.28%	3.903	18.596	0.20%	0.001µs	1	200
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/x371413321323331	throughput	163527520.537op/s	165564267.411op/s ± 326181.643op/s	165615776.167op/s ± 94808.214op/s	165729276.077op/s	165827946.228op/s	165860769.848op/s	165880760.264op/s	0.16%	-3.871	18.324	0.20%	23064.525op/s	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
credit_card/is_card_number/	execution_time	[3.913µs; 3.914µs] or [-0.011%; +0.011%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/	throughput	[255504589.387op/s; 255558542.710op/s] or [-0.011%; +0.011%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005	execution_time	[79.650µs; 79.755µs] or [-0.066%; +0.066%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005	throughput	[12538695.683op/s; 12555223.567op/s] or [-0.066%; +0.066%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005	execution_time	[83.308µs; 83.449µs] or [-0.084%; +0.084%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005	throughput	[11983935.447op/s; 12004010.386op/s] or [-0.084%; +0.084%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631	execution_time	[3.913µs; 3.914µs] or [-0.011%; +0.011%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631	throughput	[255500348.874op/s; 255556097.828op/s] or [-0.011%; +0.011%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005	execution_time	[69.679µs; 69.774µs] or [-0.068%; +0.068%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005	throughput	[14332423.643op/s; 14351845.544op/s] or [-0.068%; +0.068%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798	execution_time	[52.223µs; 52.232µs] or [-0.009%; +0.009%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798	throughput	[19145232.283op/s; 19148783.591op/s] or [-0.009%; +0.009%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/x371413321323331	execution_time	[6.036µs; 6.039µs] or [-0.024%; +0.024%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number/x371413321323331	throughput	[165586667.848op/s; 165664375.031op/s] or [-0.023%; +0.023%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/	execution_time	[3.912µs; 3.913µs] or [-0.010%; +0.010%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/	throughput	[255575000.348op/s; 255624784.741op/s] or [-0.010%; +0.010%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 3782-8224-6310-005	execution_time	[64.410µs; 64.455µs] or [-0.035%; +0.035%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 3782-8224-6310-005	throughput	[15514785.566op/s; 15525569.434op/s] or [-0.035%; +0.035%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005	execution_time	[58.401µs; 58.442µs] or [-0.035%; +0.035%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005	throughput	[17111118.172op/s; 17123028.045op/s] or [-0.035%; +0.035%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631	execution_time	[3.912µs; 3.913µs] or [-0.010%; +0.010%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631	throughput	[255547877.319op/s; 255599685.193op/s] or [-0.010%; +0.010%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005	execution_time	[54.897µs; 54.976µs] or [-0.072%; +0.072%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005	throughput	[18190405.449op/s; 18216360.391op/s] or [-0.071%; +0.071%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798	execution_time	[52.219µs; 52.228µs] or [-0.009%; +0.009%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798	throughput	[19146770.488op/s; 19150285.065op/s] or [-0.009%; +0.009%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/x371413321323331	execution_time	[6.038µs; 6.042µs] or [-0.028%; +0.028%]	None	None	None
credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/x371413321323331	throughput	[165519061.772op/s; 165609473.049op/s] or [-0.027%; +0.027%]	None	None	None

Group 9

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
profile_add_sample2_frames_x1000	execution_time	727.578µs	728.915µs ± 0.578µs	728.821µs ± 0.361µs	729.251µs	729.993µs	730.351µs	730.900µs	0.29%	0.567	0.261	0.08%	0.041µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
profile_add_sample2_frames_x1000	execution_time	[728.835µs; 728.995µs] or [-0.011%; +0.011%]	None	None	None

Group 10

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
sdk_test_data/rules-based	execution_time	144.953µs	147.037µs ± 1.965µs	146.668µs ± 0.566µs	147.248µs	149.425µs	155.647µs	161.234µs	9.93%	4.209	22.798	1.33%	0.139µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
sdk_test_data/rules-based	execution_time	[146.765µs; 147.310µs] or [-0.185%; +0.185%]	None	None	None

Group 11

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/A0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...	execution_time	533.880µs	534.791µs ± 0.810µs	534.733µs ± 0.228µs	534.943µs	535.491µs	536.223µs	544.605µs	1.85%	9.031	106.348	0.15%	0.057µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/A0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...	throughput	1836193.006op/s	1869894.710op/s ± 2793.113op/s	1870093.720op/s ± 797.096op/s	1870948.674op/s	1872164.737op/s	1872844.309op/s	1873080.918op/s	0.16%	-8.910	104.372	0.15%	197.503op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Data🐨dog🐶 繋がっ⛰てて	execution_time	386.144µs	387.528µs ± 0.438µs	387.563µs ± 0.272µs	387.801µs	388.265µs	388.386µs	388.504µs	0.24%	-0.479	0.613	0.11%	0.031µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Data🐨dog🐶 繋がっ⛰てて	throughput	2573975.470op/s	2580460.010op/s ± 2916.696op/s	2580222.943op/s ± 1809.247op/s	2582081.889op/s	2585871.139op/s	2588391.663op/s	2589705.028op/s	0.37%	0.487	0.626	0.11%	206.242op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Test Conversion 0f Weird !@#$%^&**() Characters	execution_time	189.931µs	190.285µs ± 0.163µs	190.282µs ± 0.114µs	190.388µs	190.567µs	190.685µs	190.739µs	0.24%	0.373	-0.244	0.09%	0.011µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Test Conversion 0f Weird !@#$%^&**() Characters	throughput	5242771.103op/s	5255271.328op/s ± 4486.962op/s	5255345.409op/s ± 3154.227op/s	5258666.578op/s	5262162.412op/s	5262944.477op/s	5265079.649op/s	0.19%	-0.369	-0.249	0.09%	317.276op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/[empty string]	execution_time	37.401µs	37.542µs ± 0.061µs	37.537µs ± 0.034µs	37.580µs	37.645µs	37.695µs	37.792µs	0.68%	0.479	1.084	0.16%	0.004µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/[empty string]	throughput	26460580.744op/s	26636895.564op/s ± 43359.305op/s	26640577.945op/s ± 24483.184op/s	26660617.254op/s	26709790.048op/s	26725375.409op/s	26737453.013op/s	0.36%	-0.465	1.054	0.16%	3065.966op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/test_ASCII	execution_time	45.828µs	45.961µs ± 0.127µs	45.949µs ± 0.047µs	45.998µs	46.075µs	46.124µs	47.513µs	3.40%	9.109	108.333	0.28%	0.009µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/test_ASCII	throughput	21047058.416op/s	21757770.207op/s ± 58841.287op/s	21763359.257op/s ± 22301.535op/s	21784502.978op/s	21806507.011op/s	21816492.350op/s	21820768.571op/s	0.26%	-8.883	104.670	0.27%	4160.707op/s	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/A0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...	execution_time	[534.678µs; 534.903µs] or [-0.021%; +0.021%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/A0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...	throughput	[1869507.611op/s; 1870281.808op/s] or [-0.021%; +0.021%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Data🐨dog🐶 繋がっ⛰てて	execution_time	[387.468µs; 387.589µs] or [-0.016%; +0.016%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Data🐨dog🐶 繋がっ⛰てて	throughput	[2580055.784op/s; 2580864.236op/s] or [-0.016%; +0.016%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Test Conversion 0f Weird !@#$%^&**() Characters	execution_time	[190.263µs; 190.308µs] or [-0.012%; +0.012%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Test Conversion 0f Weird !@#$%^&**() Characters	throughput	[5254649.478op/s; 5255893.178op/s] or [-0.012%; +0.012%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/[empty string]	execution_time	[37.534µs; 37.550µs] or [-0.023%; +0.023%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/[empty string]	throughput	[26630886.381op/s; 26642904.747op/s] or [-0.023%; +0.023%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/test_ASCII	execution_time	[45.943µs; 45.979µs] or [-0.038%; +0.038%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/test_ASCII	throughput	[21749615.370op/s; 21765925.043op/s] or [-0.037%; +0.037%]	None	None	None

Group 12

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
ip_address/quantize_peer_ip_address_benchmark	execution_time	4.927µs	5.002µs ± 0.041µs	4.983µs ± 0.029µs	5.047µs	5.062µs	5.067µs	5.068µs	1.71%	0.274	-1.451	0.83%	0.003µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
ip_address/quantize_peer_ip_address_benchmark	execution_time	[4.996µs; 5.007µs] or [-0.115%; +0.115%]	None	None	None

Group 13

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
benching serializing traces from their internal representation to msgpack	execution_time	13.992ms	14.042ms ± 0.026ms	14.038ms ± 0.011ms	14.049ms	14.067ms	14.155ms	14.197ms	1.13%	3.147	13.408	0.18%	0.002ms	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
benching serializing traces from their internal representation to msgpack	execution_time	[14.039ms; 14.046ms] or [-0.026%; +0.026%]	None	None	None

Group 14

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
write only interface	execution_time	1.174µs	3.199µs ± 1.437µs	2.974µs ± 0.030µs	3.004µs	3.648µs	13.818µs	15.192µs	410.83%	7.338	55.268	44.80%	0.102µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
write only interface	execution_time	[3.000µs; 3.398µs] or [-6.224%; +6.224%]	None	None	None

Group 15

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Lo...	execution_time	185.111µs	185.594µs ± 0.336µs	185.555µs ± 0.160µs	185.714µs	186.002µs	187.118µs	188.141µs	1.39%	3.757	22.957	0.18%	0.024µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Lo...	throughput	5315174.571op/s	5388134.189op/s ± 9676.772op/s	5389238.788op/s ± 4656.572op/s	5393734.351op/s	5397980.046op/s	5401223.202op/s	5402172.132op/s	0.24%	-3.699	22.416	0.18%	684.251op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/bad-name	execution_time	17.865µs	17.960µs ± 0.048µs	17.953µs ± 0.033µs	17.993µs	18.045µs	18.066µs	18.077µs	0.69%	0.262	-0.512	0.26%	0.003µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/bad-name	throughput	55317447.774op/s	55680044.573op/s ± 147248.432op/s	55700045.426op/s ± 101454.005op/s	55779382.698op/s	55916173.106op/s	55964634.570op/s	55974265.009op/s	0.49%	-0.251	-0.518	0.26%	10412.036op/s	1	200
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/good	execution_time	10.317µs	10.374µs ± 0.034µs	10.364µs ± 0.017µs	10.386µs	10.447µs	10.492µs	10.515µs	1.46%	1.541	2.680	0.33%	0.002µs	1	200
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/good	throughput	95103331.210op/s	96393766.100op/s ± 318282.485op/s	96488935.759op/s ± 156298.973op/s	96622989.904op/s	96713623.465op/s	96820102.250op/s	96925408.555op/s	0.45%	-1.518	2.584	0.33%	22505.970op/s	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Lo...	execution_time	[185.547µs; 185.640µs] or [-0.025%; +0.025%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Long-.Too-Lo...	throughput	[5386793.081op/s; 5389475.296op/s] or [-0.025%; +0.025%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/bad-name	execution_time	[17.953µs; 17.966µs] or [-0.037%; +0.037%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/bad-name	throughput	[55659637.357op/s; 55700451.790op/s] or [-0.037%; +0.037%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/good	execution_time	[10.369µs; 10.379µs] or [-0.046%; +0.046%]	None	None	None
normalization/normalize_name/normalize_name/good	throughput	[96349655.209op/s; 96437876.991op/s] or [-0.046%; +0.046%]	None	None	None

Group 16

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
sql/obfuscate_sql_string	execution_time	89.889µs	90.085µs ± 0.132µs	90.070µs ± 0.051µs	90.122µs	90.244µs	90.371µs	91.254µs	1.31%	5.104	38.714	0.15%	0.009µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
sql/obfuscate_sql_string	execution_time	[90.067µs; 90.103µs] or [-0.020%; +0.020%]	None	None	None

Group 17

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
single_flag_killswitch/rules-based	execution_time	188.416ns	190.667ns ± 1.688ns	190.543ns ± 1.204ns	191.593ns	193.952ns	196.504ns	197.543ns	3.67%	1.180	1.802	0.88%	0.119ns	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
single_flag_killswitch/rules-based	execution_time	[190.433ns; 190.901ns] or [-0.123%; +0.123%]	None	None	None

Group 18

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
receiver_entry_point/report/2597	execution_time	3.317ms	3.344ms ± 0.013ms	3.342ms ± 0.008ms	3.351ms	3.368ms	3.381ms	3.415ms	2.18%	1.206	3.495	0.40%	0.001ms	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
receiver_entry_point/report/2597	execution_time	[3.342ms; 3.346ms] or [-0.055%; +0.055%]	None	None	None

Group 19

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	`0af80fa`	1772456387	yannham/process-context-sharing

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
concentrator/add_spans_to_concentrator	execution_time	10.599ms	10.637ms ± 0.024ms	10.636ms ± 0.010ms	10.646ms	10.664ms	10.698ms	10.857ms	2.08%	4.549	36.003	0.23%	0.002ms	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
concentrator/add_spans_to_concentrator	execution_time	[10.634ms; 10.641ms] or [-0.032%; +0.032%]	None	None	None

Baseline

Omitted due to size.

codecov-commenter · 2026-02-19T17:02:25Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.60606% with 32 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 71.18%. Comparing base (d4c7824) to head (0af80fa).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1585      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.08%   71.18%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         424      425       +1     
  Lines       62493    62666     +173     
==========================================
+ Hits        44426    44609     +183     
+ Misses      18067    18057      -10

Components	Coverage Δ
libdd-crashtracker	`63.02% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-crashtracker-ffi	`15.63% <ø> (-0.47%)`	⬇️
libdd-alloc	`98.77% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-data-pipeline	`87.38% <ø> (-0.45%)`	⬇️
libdd-data-pipeline-ffi	`72.83% <ø> (-1.81%)`	⬇️
libdd-common	`79.73% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-common-ffi	`73.40% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-telemetry	`62.48% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-telemetry-ffi	`16.75% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-dogstatsd-client	`82.64% <ø> (ø)`
datadog-ipc	`80.74% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-profiling	`81.60% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-profiling-ffi	`63.65% <ø> (ø)`
datadog-sidecar	`33.45% <ø> (+1.19%)`	⬆️
datdog-sidecar-ffi	`12.41% <ø> (+5.21%)`	⬆️
spawn-worker	`54.69% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-tinybytes	`93.16% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-trace-normalization	`81.71% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-trace-obfuscation	`94.67% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-trace-protobuf	`68.00% <ø> (ø)`
libdd-trace-utils	`88.97% <ø> (-0.21%)`	⬇️
datadog-tracer-flare	`90.45% <ø> (+1.49%)`	⬆️
libdd-log	`74.69% <ø> (ø)`

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs

paullegranddc · 2026-02-19T17:53:17Z

libdd-library-config/Cargo.toml

 rand = "0.8.3"
 rmp = "0.8.14"
 rmp-serde = "1.3.0"
+rustix = { version = "1.1.3", features = ["param", "mm", "process"] }


why rustix rather than the libc crate?

IMHO it's higher-level and a nicer to use than libc (for example memfd_create returns a Result and an RAII file descriptor that is automatically closed upon drop, while the one from libc returns a c_int, etc.). I saw a bunch of occurrences already in Cargo.lock and thought it was pulled already anyway. But upon scrutiny it seems that the 1.1.3 major version bucket is mostly used by tempfile, which is a dev dependency most of the time? So maybe this is actually pulling some additional stuff.

There are a bunch of other dependencies that use the 0.38 version of rustix, so I can also downgrade to this one. But it's just a slight QoL improvement; happy to switch to libc if you think it's better for whatever reason.

Might be worth giving a quick check on the size of the resulting builds (I thought we had a github action that posted that but I'm not seeing it?).

In particular, we don't have a specific set target size that we need to stay under, but for many reasons we often have to ship variants so 1 MiB extra does add up if we need to ship e.g. N architectures and M versions.

Having said that, I feel like I'd seen rustix before but hadn't paid a lot of attention to it.

Looking at https://crates.io/crates/rustix it lists that it can work even without libc and that's amazing! If we could drop libc as a dependency from libdatadog would be super-unlock, since one situation where we end up needing to repeat builds is sometimes needing to have builds for both for glibc AND musl.

If we could drop libc as a dependency from libdatadog would be super-unlock, since one situation where we end up needing to repeat builds is sometimes needing to have builds for both for glibc AND musl.

That's not really possible, because std uses libc

That's not really possible, because std uses libc

Yeah, I know. Rust is very disapponting in this :P

The CI comment on artifact size seems to point at it being the same ( #1585 (comment) ) so no strong feelings here -- any concerns with keeping as-is @paullegranddc ?

ivoanjo

Did a pass on it! Sorry from my part if there is a bit of a confusion with older versions of the spec being implemented, I'll make sure to keep a close eye on the libdatadog impl so it doesn't fall behind while things are still sometimes moving in the spec.

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs

dd-octo-sts · 2026-02-23T13:24:40Z

Artifact Size Benchmark Report

aarch64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	97.30 MB	97.30 MB	+0% (+1.03 KB) 👌
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	8.51 MB	8.51 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	11.12 MB	11.12 MB	+0% (+304 B) 👌
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	112.92 MB	112.92 MB	+0% (+7.26 KB) 👌

libdatadog-x64-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	27.16 MB	27.16 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	76.26 KB	76.26 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	185.98 MB	185.98 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	916.65 MB	916.65 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	9.93 MB	9.93 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	76.26 KB	76.26 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	24.76 MB	24.76 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	51.43 MB	51.43 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

libdatadog-x86-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	22.97 MB	22.97 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	77.44 KB	77.44 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	190.13 MB	190.16 MB	+.01% (+24.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	900.31 MB	900.31 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	7.53 MB	7.53 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	77.44 KB	77.44 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	26.52 MB	26.52 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	47.06 MB	47.06 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

x86_64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	85.27 MB	85.27 MB	+0% (+456 B) 👌
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	10.04 MB	10.04 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	105.89 MB	105.90 MB	+0% (+2.97 KB) 👌
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	11.79 MB	11.79 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctxt.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

libdd-library-config/Cargo.toml

ivoanjo

Left a few more comments! I think this is pretty much good to go (once undrafted and CI is happy)

libdd-library-config/src/lib.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctxt.rs

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

ivoanjo · 2026-03-02T10:15:32Z

libdd-library-config/Cargo.toml

 rand = "0.8.3"
 rmp = "0.8.14"
 rmp-serde = "1.3.0"
+rustix = { version = "1.1.3", features = ["param", "mm", "process"] }


The CI comment on artifact size seems to point at it being the same ( #1585 (comment) ) so no strong feelings here -- any concerns with keeping as-is @paullegranddc ?

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs

Add an explicit rustix dependency (which was already pulled as a transitive dependency). Prep work for process context sharing.

The wrong mapping name was used for discovery. Co-authored-by: Scott Gerring <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Ivo Anjo <[email protected]>

ivoanjo

👍 LGTM.

We discussed and are aware these will be needed as follow-ups:

Support for updates
Support for forks
Actually wiring it up

...but I think as-is this PR is good to go and we can build atop it

yannham · 2026-03-02T15:08:43Z

/merge

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 · 2026-03-02T15:08:47Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-03-02 15:08:47 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2026-03-02 15:08:53 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 48m (p90).

2026-03-02 15:49:46 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

# What does this PR do? This PR implements the missing update sequence of the [OTel process context](open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#4719). This allows for modification of an already published OTel process context. # Motivation This PR is a planned follow-up of #1585, which was knowingly incomplete: it could publish a fresh context, but wouldn't be able to update the context. This PR implements the missing update functionality. See the OTEP spec mentioned above for more information about the general motivation. # Additional Notes This only part of #1585 follow-ups. In particular, it does not handle forks (where we should publish a new context instead of updating it if there's been a fork since last publication), which is left for a follow-up. # How to test the change? This PR includes a test for the update sequence. It could also be hooked up in workflow where any reader implementation of the OTEP spec could try to read a published/updated context. Co-authored-by: yann.hamdaoui <[email protected]>

Depends #1640 # What does this PR do? This PR is a follow up of #1585 and #1640 which implement OTel process context publication. It adds a proper handling of the case of publishing a new context after a `fork`. # Motivation Some language runtimes (e.g. Python or Ruby) resorts to `fork`. In this case, the OTel process context of the child must be re-published (the process context of the parent is explicitly NOT inherited through `MADVISE_DONTFORK`). However, since they share the same copy of the static handler, prior to this PR, the publication would try to access the non-inherited mapping, potentially causing a crash. This PR properly handles this case by storing the PID of the publisher, so that upon update, we can detect if there's been a fork since (and we are a child), in which case we can re-create a mapping from scratch. # How to test the change? There is currently no test, because having tests that `fork` is not trivial to set up in the current Rust test framework (it is admittedly possible, but is a larger question that should be treated separately IMHO). However, two follow-up PRs are coming with an FFI and libdatadog-side protobuf encoding of the payload, which will make it possible to test the fork behavior e.g. from Ruby, once they land. Co-authored-by: yann.hamdaoui <[email protected]>

Depends #1650 # What does this PR do? Follow-up of #1585 #1640 #1650 Adds the protobuf definition for the OTel process context and associated messages, and make the interface of the publisher higher-level by taking the new structured `ProcessContext` value instead of a raw bytes payload. # Motivation Since libdatadog is already taking care of some protobuf encoding, and it's supposedly faster and simpler to do here rather than on the side of each language runtime, it makes sense to offer an interface with a struct that is encoded by libdatadog. The process context will be a `ProcessContext`-based opaque pointer on the FFI side, with proper setters/getters. # Additional Notes I was not sure where to put the protobuf definition, as there are a bunch of protobuf-dedicated crates in libdatadog. I feel like the OTel process context is about tracing metadata, but I'm happy to move it elsewhere if it makes more sense. # How to test the change? Once the FFI lands, we'll be able to publish the context from a language runtime and check the whole process end-to-end. For now, I feel like an additional test would mostly test `prost`, which isn't very valuable. Co-authored-by: yann.hamdaoui <[email protected]>

# What does this PR do? [feat: process context publication](#1585) [ci: pass macos label to downstream project](#1647) [chore: implement otel process ctx update](#1640) [chore(crashtracking): emit a best effort stacktrace for Mac](#1645) [ci: remove depth so it can cause problems when getting the diffs](#1657) [build(macOS): set the LC_ID_DYLIB for mac binaries to set correct name for linking](#1646) [chore(ci): fix crashtracker receiver binary rpath setting](#1652) [chore(deps): bump blazesym to 0.2.3 and blazesym-c to 0.1.7](#1654) [feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding](#1651) [chore(crashtracker): fix benchmark job](#1664) # Motivation What inspired you to submit this pull request? # Additional Notes Anything else we should know when reviewing? # How to test the change? Describe here in detail how the change can be validated. Co-authored-by: gyuheon.oh <[email protected]>

Depends #1653 # What does this PR do? This is the final follow-up of #1585 (and sequels) for OTel process context publication. This hooks the OTel process context sharing in the existing `store_tracer_metadata`, which now publishes using both "protocols". # Motivation This makes the OTel process context publication happen automatically for existing users of libdatadog that would publish tracer metadata already, in a transparent way. # Additional Notes N/A # How to test the change? Expected to be tested thereafter for Ruby. Co-authored-by: yann.hamdaoui <[email protected]>

# Release proposal for libdd-library-config and its dependencies This PR contains version bumps based on public API changes and commits since last release. ## libdd-trace-protobuf **Next version:** `2.0.0` **Semver bump:** `major` **Tag:** `libdd-trace-protobuf-v2.0.0` ### Commits - feat(trace-protobuf)!: Add two fields to ClientGroupedStats [SVLS-8627] (#1630) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) ## libdd-library-config **Next version:** `1.1.0` **Semver bump:** `minor` **Tag:** `libdd-library-config-v1.1.0` ### Commits - chore: update otel process ctx protocol (#1713) - feat: publish tracer metadata as OTel process ctx (#1658) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) - fix: handle fork in otel process ctx (#1650) - chore: implement otel process ctx update (#1640) - feat: process context publication (#1585) - ci: update nightly in CI to 2026-02-08 (#1539) - fix(stable_config): [APMAPI-1690] add >100mb check for stable config files (#1432) - chore: add changelog for every published crate (#1396) [SVLS-8627]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SVLS-8627?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ [APMAPI-1690]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/APMAPI-1690?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ --------- Co-authored-by: dd-octo-sts[bot] <200755185+dd-octo-sts[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

# Release proposal for libdd-library-config and its dependencies This PR contains version bumps based on public API changes and commits since last release. ## libdd-trace-protobuf **Next version:** `2.0.0` **Semver bump:** `major` **Tag:** `libdd-trace-protobuf-v2.0.0` ### Commits - feat(trace-protobuf)!: Add two fields to ClientGroupedStats [SVLS-8627] (#1630) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) ## libdd-library-config **Next version:** `1.1.0` **Semver bump:** `minor` **Tag:** `libdd-library-config-v1.1.0` ### Commits - chore: update otel process ctx protocol (#1713) - feat: publish tracer metadata as OTel process ctx (#1658) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) - fix: handle fork in otel process ctx (#1650) - chore: implement otel process ctx update (#1640) - feat: process context publication (#1585) - ci: update nightly in CI to 2026-02-08 (#1539) - fix(stable_config): [APMAPI-1690] add >100mb check for stable config files (#1432) - chore: add changelog for every published crate (#1396) [SVLS-8627]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SVLS-8627?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ [APMAPI-1690]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/APMAPI-1690?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ --------- # What does this PR do? A brief description of the change being made with this pull request. # Motivation What inspired you to submit this pull request? # Additional Notes Anything else we should know when reviewing? # How to test the change? Describe here in detail how the change can be validated. [SVLS-8627]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SVLS-8627?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ [APMAPI-1690]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/APMAPI-1690?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ [SVLS-8627]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SVLS-8627?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ Co-authored-by: dd-octo-sts[bot] <200755185+dd-octo-sts[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

# Release proposal for libdd-library-config and its dependencies This PR contains version bumps based on public API changes and commits since last release. ## libdd-trace-protobuf **Next version:** `2.0.0` **Semver bump:** `major` **Tag:** `libdd-trace-protobuf-v2.0.0` ### Commits - feat(trace-protobuf)!: Add two fields to ClientGroupedStats [SVLS-8627] (#1630) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) ## libdd-library-config **Next version:** `1.1.0` **Semver bump:** `minor` **Tag:** `libdd-library-config-v1.1.0` ### Commits - chore: update otel process ctx protocol (#1713) - feat: publish tracer metadata as OTel process ctx (#1658) - feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding (#1651) - fix: handle fork in otel process ctx (#1650) - chore: implement otel process ctx update (#1640) - feat: process context publication (#1585) - ci: update nightly in CI to 2026-02-08 (#1539) - fix(stable_config): [APMAPI-1690] add >100mb check for stable config files (#1432) - chore: add changelog for every published crate (#1396) [SVLS-8627]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/SVLS-8627?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ [APMAPI-1690]: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/APMAPI-1690?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ --------- Co-authored-by: dd-octo-sts[bot] <200755185+dd-octo-sts[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

ivoanjo mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2026

[PROF-12372] (Draft) Hack for experimental support for publishing process context for fullhost profiler DataDog/dd-trace-rb#4865

Closed

yannham force-pushed the yannham/process-context-sharing branch from 05a3bcd to 6598cc3 Compare February 19, 2026 16:47

yannham force-pushed the yannham/process-context-sharing branch from 6598cc3 to 43208fe Compare February 19, 2026 17:29

paullegranddc reviewed Feb 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

libdd-library-config/src/process_context.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

paullegranddc reviewed Feb 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

ivoanjo requested review from ivoanjo and scottgerring February 20, 2026 09:09

yannham force-pushed the yannham/process-context-sharing branch 2 times, most recently from fedbeb2 to 74d2641 Compare February 20, 2026 16:38

ivoanjo reviewed Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

scottgerring reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctxt.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

libdd-library-config/src/otel_process_ctx.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

libdd-library-config/Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ivoanjo reviewed Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

yannham and others added 14 commits March 2, 2026 13:57

chore: add rustix dependency

44a0728

Add an explicit rustix dependency (which was already pulled as a transitive dependency). Prep work for process context sharing.

feat: add process context publication

9acff87

test: add reading test for process context

93fb32f

chore: review suggestion for otel process ctxt

63e41f7

chore: fix clippy warning

0a3ba1f

chore: add missing feature to rustix dep

f285059

test: fix process context sharing test

c8cb612

The wrong mapping name was used for discovery. Co-authored-by: Scott Gerring <[email protected]>

test: free mapping in otel process ctxt test

e4a7e86

chore: guard rustix dependency to be linux-only

63bfe33

chore: remove unused field in otel process ctxt

11ff38d

chore: unify the signature of update and publish

bb80f43

fix: fix typo in otel_process_ctxt comment

f3b9cef

Co-authored-by: Ivo Anjo <[email protected]>

chore: otel_process_ctxt -> otel_process_ctx

c42b971

chore: move consts into linux-specific module

555434d

yannham requested a review from a team as a code owner March 2, 2026 13:14

yannham requested review from vpellan and removed request for a team March 2, 2026 13:14

ivoanjo approved these changes Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

gh-worker-dd-devflow-36fce6 bot added mergequeue-status: queued mergequeue-status: in_progress and removed mergequeue-status: queued labels Mar 2, 2026

ivoanjo mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

feat: OTel process context v2 DataDog/dd-trace-go#4456

Closed

9 tasks

gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d bot merged commit 8fb3175 into main Mar 2, 2026
84 checks passed

gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d bot deleted the yannham/process-context-sharing branch March 2, 2026 15:49

gh-worker-dd-devflow-36fce6 bot added mergequeue-status: done and removed mergequeue-status: in_progress labels Mar 2, 2026

This was referenced Mar 2, 2026

chore: implement otel process ctx update #1640

Merged

fix: handle fork in otel process ctx #1650

Merged

feat: otel process ctxt protobuf encoding #1651

Merged

yannham mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2026

feat: publish tracer metadata as OTel process ctx #1658

Merged

gyuheon0h mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2026

chore(cargo): bump to 28.0.3 #1660

Merged

dd-octo-sts bot mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2026

chore(release): proposal for libdd-library-config #1726

Merged

hoolioh mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2026

chore(release): proposal for libdd-library-config (#1726) #1730

Merged

Conversation

yannham commented Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Additional Notes

How to test the change?

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Clippy Allow Annotation Report

Summary by Rule

Annotation Counts by File

Annotation Stats by Crate

About This Report

Uh oh!

pr-commenter bot commented Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmarks

Comparison

scenario:benching serializing traces from their internal representation to msgpack

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005

Candidate

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Group 7

Group 8

Group 9

Group 10

Group 11

Group 12

Group 13

Group 14

Group 15

Group 16

Group 17

Group 18

Group 19

Baseline

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paullegranddc Feb 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yannham Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivoanjo Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

paullegranddc Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivoanjo Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivoanjo Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivoanjo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yannham commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pr-commenter bot commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

dd-octo-sts bot commented Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 bot commented Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading