-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-96143: Allow Linux perf profiler to see Python calls #96123
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no idea if that assembly code does what you say, but I've reviewed the rest.
Definitely an intriguing idea.
9b009f2
to
439ef28
Compare
You can use preprocesor macros if you name the file |
Hummm, not sure I follow, could you maybe show me an example of what we can achieve with this? |
You can have multiple implementations in the same file:
|
df2a40d
to
dda9e04
Compare
f38dfc2
to
22fc892
Compare
a2f4182
to
1b35ed3
Compare
Why did you add a Windows build file? How about we do not define |
Then we need to add more ifdef every place is used but that works as well for sure |
they now match the current code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Two thoughts have been running around in my mind:
(1) We've got the command line flag and sys API, but what about just enabling this system wide or at least task/job wide within a container? An environment variable that turns it on would make that easy without plumbing options through. PYTHONPERFSUPPORT=1
as another equivalent to -Xperf
? That's usually done in initconfig.c alongside the -X processing I believe.
Second: multiprocessing spawn start method. If the -Xperf
flag was passed to the parent process I assume the "spawn" method should also pass that to its children.
I think (1) makes sense and is indeed coherent with how we handle some of the other options like Regarding (2) I am not that sure. We don't do this for the rest of the flags that we pass around and you can achieve the same with the environment variable if you want. In any case, as that would require some tests I would prefer to do that in a separate PR as this is already gigantic |
I implemented the environment variable and solved a bunch of conflicts. Please check it out when you have time. I also had to solve a bunch of conflicts. @gpshead if you are ok with the current status I would like us to land if everything looks good as the size of the PR is already attracting a bunch of merge conflicts in the build system, clinic and other files. |
Ah wait, I need to document the environment variable. Will push a commit for that soon. |
Done 👍 |
@erlend-aasland has mentioned that he was a bunch of docs improvements that he will do in a separate PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My comments are easy to address things that don't need further review - minor edits or added note/todo comments to our future selves.
Agreed that the docs can use some polishing up but all the important bits are there to seed that future work, thanks for writing them!
Thanks for taking on adding this feature! I expect we'll see how a backport fares internally.
Damn, @miss-islington has landed the PR without waiting for the CI to build the last commit I pushed so I created #96433. |
Thanks, everyone for the fantastic reviews and for helping to get this feature ready ❤️ You all rock 🤘 |
@erlend-aasland You can make the doc improvement PR after #96433 lands. |
Thanks for all for pushing for better interoperability with |
Nice feature! There is a typo in sys.deactivate_stack_trampoline() docstring: "Dectivate the perf profiler trampoline": Deactivate. In the doc,
The second command can be replaced with |
See #96445 :) |
Is it possible to port these changes, from python 3.12, without breaking to previous python versions, say 3.11, 3.10, 3.9? Why? |
Is possible, but as these versions are only accepting security fixes or bugfixes we cannot backport new features. This means that if you want you can backport them yourself but you need to maintain a fork of the interpreter. |
Summary: Backport the perf-trampoline introduced in python/cpython#96123. The perf trampoline doesn't work properly with the JIT, so we have submitted a PR to have a C-API to unify writing to the perf-map files python/cpython#103546. Reviewed By: czardoz Differential Revision: D45419843 fbshipit-source-id: 16bd13d7981e48c9eb7bc0e5eef1c1f4748965f6
Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:pablogsal