fix(http): Prevent concurrent read/writes on http client trace timings

[mtoffl01]

What does this PR do?

Adds a sync.Mutex on httpTraceTimings struct.

Motivation

Data race on the struct.
http://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-go/issues/4525/

Reviewer's Checklist

• Changed code has unit tests for its functionality at or near 100% coverage.
• System-Tests covering this feature have been added and enabled with the va.b.c-dev version tag.
• There is a benchmark for any new code, or changes to existing code.
• If this interacts with the agent in a new way, a system test has been added.
• New code is free of linting errors. You can check this by running make lint locally.
• New code doesn't break existing tests. You can check this by running make test locally.
• Add an appropriate team label so this PR gets put in the right place for the release notes.
• All generated files are up to date. You can check this by running make generate locally.
• Non-trivial go.mod changes, e.g. adding new modules, are reviewed by @DataDog/dd-trace-go-guild. Make sure all nested modules are up to date by running make fix-modules locally.

Unsure? Have a question? Request a review!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.50%. Comparing base (520f825) to head (882f71d).

Additional details and impacted files

see 86 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[datadog-official]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 60.02% (+0.08%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: e97b3d0 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? React with 👍/👎 or give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-03-26 16:44:25

Comparing candidate commit e97b3d0 in PR branch mtoff/fix-client-timings-race with baseline commit 520f825 in branch main.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 215 metrics, 9 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

• 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
• 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

[darccio]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[darccio]

@kakkoyun Should we add checklocs here?

[kakkoyun]

Yes, let's add checklocks annotations to the struct. I wonder why it didn't complaint about this

[kakkoyun]

Looking good. Let's add the checklocks annotations.

On top of that we can consider using atomic.Pointer[time.Time]{} instead of sharing a single lock. In high throughput services this lock can create contention.

Now that I thought about this again, I think this will create additional allocations without a guaranteed gain (we need to measure first), even though multiple goroutines involved in this path the struct is per request,so let's stick with the mutex.

[kakkoyun]

Yes, let's add checklocks annotations to the struct. I wonder why it didn't complaint about this