fix(fleet): Skip subprocess for getStates on Windows to fix OOM errors#47875
Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 3 commits intomainfrom Mar 18, 2026
Conversation
BaptisteFoy
added
changelog/no-changelog
github-actions
Bot
added
the
short review
Contributor
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor 6e8b5622: Results for datadog-agent_7.78.0~devel.git.615.5e9c301.pipeline.102958711-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Contributor
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates 31 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
On-wire sizes (compressed)
|
github-actions
Bot
added
medium review
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d98e355 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -4.55 | [-7.51, -1.59] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.93 | [-0.65, +2.51] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.90 | [+0.77, +1.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.30 | [+0.24, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.22 | [+0.15, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.11 | [+0.06, +0.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.09 | [-0.00, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.06 | [-0.01, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.44, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.37, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.19, +0.20] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.10, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.20, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.11, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.09, -0.01] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.07 | [-0.21, +0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.07 | [-0.26, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.50, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.16, -0.05] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.28, +0.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.20 | [-0.36, -0.05] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.45 | [-0.67, -0.23] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -1.46 | [-1.70, -1.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -4.55 | [-7.51, -1.59] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 720 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | 276.62MiB ≤ 370MiB | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 724 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.19GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.23GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.21GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 = 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 172.47MiB ≤ 175MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | 2 ≤ 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 491.45MiB ≤ 550MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 202.36MiB ≤ 220MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 370.94 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 410.20MiB ≤ 475MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | 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:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
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.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle, 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_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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 cpu_usage: 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, 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_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0456e57c16
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Comment on lines
+39
to
+41
| packageStates, err := repos.GetStates() | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("error getting package states from disk: %w", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new Windows fast-path reads repository state directly via repos.GetStates(), but it no longer goes through installer.NewInstaller, which previously called ensureRepositoriesExist() before reading state. Because GetStates() ultimately does os.ReadDir(paths.PackagesPath), a fresh install or partially initialized/cleaned-up host where packages is absent now returns an error instead of an empty state, causing ConfigAndPackageStates (and daemon state refresh/status flows that call it) to fail until setup recreates the directory.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
coignetp
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2026
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
Bot
deleted the
baptiste.foy/fa/no-get-states-process-for-windows
branch
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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 does this PR do?
Moves
getStatesfrom the platform-agnosticinstaller_exec.gointo platform-specific files:installer_exec_windows.go): Reads package and config states directly in-process usingrepository.NewRepositoriesandconfig.Directories.GetState(), avoiding the subprocess spawn entirely.installer_exec_nix.go): Keeps the existing subprocess approach unchanged (needed for privilege escalation viaRootToDatadogAgent()/DatadogAgentToRoot()).Motivation
getStatesFromDisk/getStatesis the biggest source of errors in the installer on Windows. The errors are OOM/VirtualAlloc/paging-file failures caused by spawning a subprocess to read package states.On Windows, there's no permission reason to spawn a separate process. The state-reading logic itself is lightweight (reads symlinks and
.deployment-idfiles from disk), so running it in-process eliminates the OOM-prone subprocess entirely.Describe how you validated your changes
GOOS=windows go build ./pkg/fleet/installer/exec/go build ./pkg/fleet/installer/exec/go test ./pkg/fleet/installer/...— all passgo test ./pkg/fleet/daemon/...— all passAdditional Notes
The Windows in-process implementation mirrors the logic from
installerImpl.ConfigAndPackageStates+installerImpl.configStatesininstaller.go, but without opening the bbolt database or creating an OCI downloader. It still emits a telemetry span (installer.get-states) for observability.