disk: apply device_include/exclude filtering to latency metrics by gouri-yerra · Pull Request #23928 · DataDog/integrations-core

gouri-yerra · 2026-06-03T22:33:25Z

What does this PR do?

Applies device_include/device_exclude filtering to collect_latency_metrics() so that system.disk.read_time, system.disk.write_time, system.disk.read_time_pct, and system.disk.write_time_pct respect the same device filtering as space metrics.

Motivation

collect_latency_metrics() iterated over psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=True) and emitted IO metrics for every disk on the system with no filtering applied, while space metrics (system.disk.total, used, free, etc.) correctly honoured device_include/device_exclude. This caused customers who configured device_include to still receive latency metrics tagged with excluded devices (e.g. device:c: appearing even when only device:u: was configured).

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
Add qa/required if this PR needs QA validation, or qa/skip-qa if it does not. Exactly one of the two is required.
If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

collect_latency_metrics() was emitting read_time/write_time metrics for every disk regardless of device_include/device_exclude configuration, while space metrics were correctly filtered. This caused unexpected metrics from excluded devices to appear in customer data. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 · 2026-06-03T22:35:22Z

✨ Fix all issues with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 5 Pipeline jobs failed

PR | test / check

PR | test / test (linux, ubuntu-22.04, disk, Disk on Linux (py3.13), py3.13) / Disk on Linux (py3.13)-py3.13

PR | test / test (windows, windows-2022, disk, Disk on Windows) / Disk on Windows

View all 5 failed jobs.

🧪 2 Tests failed in 1 job

PR | run

test_latency_metrics_respect_device_include from test_unit.py

(Fix with Cursor)

Needed exactly 1 candidates for &#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, got 0
Expected:
        MetricStub(name=&#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, type=None, value=None, tags=[&#39;device:sda1&#39;, &#39;device_name:sda1&#39;], hostname=None, device=None, flush_first_value=None)
Difference to closest:


Similar submitted:
Score   Most similar

test_latency_metrics_respect_device_include from test_unit.py

(Fix with Cursor)

Needed exactly 0 candidates for &#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, got 1
Expected:
        MetricStub(name=&#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, type=None, value=None, tags=[&#39;device:D:&#39;, &#39;device_name:d:&#39;], hostname=None, device=None, flush_first_value=None)
Difference to closest:


Similar submitted:
Score   Most similar
1.00    MetricStub(name=&#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, type=3, value=50.0, tags=[&#39;device:D:&#39;, &#39;device_name:d:&#39;], hostname=&#39;&#39;, device=None, flush_first_value=False)
0.98    MetricStub(name=&#39;system.disk.read_time&#39;, type=3, value=50.0, tags=[&#39;device:C:&#39;, &#39;device_name:c:&#39;], hostname=&#39;&#39;, device=None, flush_first_value=False)
...

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.

🔗 Commit SHA: 38ceb6f | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 52db952835

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-03T22:37:16Z

    def collect_latency_metrics(self):
        for disk_name, disk in psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=True).items():
            self.log.debug('IO Counters: %s -> %s', disk_name, disk)
+            if self._device_excluded(disk_name) or not self._device_included(disk_name):


Match latency filters against partition device paths

On Linux, the documented device_include/device_exclude values match disk_partitions() device paths such as /dev/sda1, but disk_io_counters(perdisk=True) keys are bare names such as sda1. With a common config like device_exclude: ['/dev/sdb1'], this check still emits latency metrics for sdb1; with device_include: ['/dev/sda1'], it drops the included device's latency metrics because the regex is evaluated only against the bare disk_name. The filter needs to account for the same device path format used by partition metrics.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…e tag Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

iliakur · 2026-06-05T09:44:01Z

    def collect_latency_metrics(self):
        for disk_name, disk in psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=True).items():
            self.log.debug('IO Counters: %s -> %s', disk_name, disk)
+            if self._device_excluded(disk_name) or not self._device_included(disk_name):


Filtering is applied to the raw disk_name from psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=True), but device_include/device_exclude patterns are often authored against partition-style device paths. Can we make the matching semantics explicit here (normalization or explicit IO-key matching contract)?

Concrete example:

device_include: ['/dev/sda1']

disk_io_counters keys: {'sda1': ...}

Current behavior skips latency metrics for that device because _device_included('sda1') == False.
Please either normalize before predicate checks or document and lock this behavior with a unit test.

Good catch. Switched from applying regex patterns directly to IO counter keys to building a set of _base_device_name values from the partitions that already passed exclude_disk() in check(). Since _base_device_name('/dev/sda1') == _base_device_name('sda1') == 'sda1' on Linux, this normalises both sides and bridges the full-path vs bare-name gap. The filter is only active when device_include or device_exclude is configured, so unfiltered configs are unchanged.

iliakur

Requesting changes based on the inline comment about device filter matching semantics in collect_latency_metrics (raw disk_io_counters key format vs configured device patterns).

iliakur · 2026-06-05T09:51:14Z

    def collect_latency_metrics(self):
        for disk_name, disk in psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=True).items():
            self.log.debug('IO Counters: %s -> %s', disk_name, disk)
+            if self._device_excluded(disk_name) or not self._device_included(disk_name):


Could you clarify intended precedence when both filters match the same device?

Current behavior in this change is:

collect_latency_metrics checks self._device_excluded(disk_name) first

then checks not self._device_included(disk_name)

so if a device matches both include and exclude, it is skipped (exclude wins)

Is that precedence intended and part of the expected contract for latency metrics?

No longer relevant, exclude/include precedence is handled entirely by exclude_disk() in check(), which is the existing well-tested logic. The new collect_latency_metrics path just checks membership in the pre-filtered set.

Instead of applying device_include/device_exclude regexes directly to disk_io_counters keys (which use bare names on Linux like 'sda1' while patterns are written against full paths like '/dev/sda1'), build a set of allowed base device names from the partitions that passed exclude_disk() in check(). _base_device_name normalises both sides so the match is format-agnostic. Filter is only active when device_include or device_exclude is configured, preserving original behaviour otherwise. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

_base_device_name on Windows strips backslashes only, so /dev/sda1 stays as /dev/sda1 and does not normalise to match the bare io_counters key sda1. Use Windows drive-letter format on Windows runners. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

dd-octo-sts · 2026-06-05T20:21:50Z

Validation Report

All 21 validations passed.

Show details

Validation	Description	Status
`agent-reqs`	Verify check versions match the Agent requirements file	✅
`ci`	Validate CI configuration and code coverage settings	✅
`codeowners`	Validate every integration has a CODEOWNERS entry	✅
`config`	Validate default configuration files against spec.yaml	✅
`dep`	Verify dependency pins are consistent and Agent-compatible	✅
`http`	Validate integrations use the HTTP wrapper correctly	✅
`imports`	Validate check imports do not use deprecated modules	✅
`integration-style`	Validate check code style conventions	✅
`jmx-metrics`	Validate JMX metrics definition files and config	✅
`labeler`	Validate PR labeler config matches integration directories	✅
`legacy-signature`	Validate no integration uses the legacy Agent check signature	✅
`license-headers`	Validate Python files have proper license headers	✅
`licenses`	Validate third-party license attribution list	✅
`metadata`	Validate metadata.csv metric definitions	✅
`models`	Validate configuration data models match spec.yaml	✅
`openmetrics`	Validate OpenMetrics integrations disable the metric limit	✅
`package`	Validate Python package metadata and naming	✅
`qa-label`	Validate the pull request declares whether it needs QA for the next Agent release	✅
`readmes`	Validate README files have required sections	✅
`saved-views`	Validate saved view JSON file structure and fields	✅
`version`	Validate version consistency between package and changelog	✅

View full run

gouri-yerra added the qa/skip-qa Automatically skip this PR for the next QA label Jun 3, 2026

temporal-github-worker-1 Bot added agent/review-requested ecosystems/review-requested product/review-requested labels Jun 3, 2026

disk: add changelog for PR #23928

52db952

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

dd-octo-sts Bot added the integration/disk label Jun 3, 2026

gouri-yerra self-assigned this Jun 3, 2026

gouri-yerra marked this pull request as ready for review June 3, 2026 22:35

gouri-yerra requested review from a team as code owners June 3, 2026 22:35

dd-octo-sts Bot added team/agent-integrations team/windows-products labels Jun 3, 2026

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

gouri-yerra and others added 2 commits June 4, 2026 09:58

disk: fix black formatting in test

456ec7a

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

disk: fix test to use _base_device_name for cross-platform device_nam…

f902167

…e tag Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

iliakur reviewed Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

iliakur requested changes Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

temporal-github-worker-1 Bot added agent/requested-changes and removed agent/review-requested labels Jun 5, 2026

iliakur reviewed Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

gouri-yerra and others added 2 commits June 5, 2026 13:55

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

disk: apply device_include/exclude filtering to latency metrics#23928

disk: apply device_include/exclude filtering to latency metrics#23928
gouri-yerra wants to merge 6 commits into
masterfrom
gouri/disk-latency-metrics-device-filter

gouri-yerra commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited by datadog-prod-us1-5 Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

iliakur Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

gouri-yerra Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

iliakur left a comment

Uh oh!

iliakur Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

gouri-yerra Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

gouri-yerra commented Jun 3, 2026

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

Uh oh!

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited by datadog-prod-us1-5 Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ Warnings

ℹ️ Info

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iliakur Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gouri-yerra Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iliakur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iliakur Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gouri-yerra Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Validation Report

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited by datadog-prod-us1-5 Bot

Loading