New submission from Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org>:
In our quest for performance, the performance of sys.settracing based tools has probably gotten worse. 1. How do we measure this? 2. How do fix this? We will initially use coverage.py as proxy for all sys.settracing based tools when measuring performance. The fix is probably to use quickening to insert a minimum set of instrumentation instructions required for tracing/profiling. The existence of `f_trace_opcode` is a bit of a problem however, as we will have to instrument *every* instruction. Ideally, sys.settracing based tools should be faster on 3.11 than 3.10, but at the least we should provide a simple alternative to sys.settracing that is faster. ---------- assignee: Mark.Shannon components: Interpreter Core messages: 407263 nosy: Mark.Shannon, nedbat, pablogsal priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Improve performance of sys.settracing based tools. type: performance versions: Python 3.11 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45923> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
