gh-96143: Improve perf profiler docs #96445
Conversation
erlend-aasland
commented
Aug 30, 2022
•
- Add What's New
- Rewrite NEWS entry to match What's New
- Document new sys APIs
- Fix formatting here and there
- Adjust wording a few places
- Issue: Allow the linux perf profiler to see Python calls #96143
Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Salgado <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
I'm confused by "compatibility mode" wording whereas the env var is called "perf support". I would prefer to say that -X perf enables support for the Linux perf tool.
"Enable" support or "Add" support, not sure which one makes more send. Technically, the option adds something ;-)
The PyConfig member, the env var and the -X option have 3 different names which also confuse me. Would it make sense to rename the -X option to -X perfsupport to make it more consistent? If yes, I would suggest doing that in a separated PR.
The name "perf" is very generic and can mean many things. A newcomer might read it as: "use -X perf to get best performance" :-)
For me, "compatibility mode" sounds like "backward compatibility mode".
+1 I've tried to address your review comments in 9c72023, @vstinner. Are you ok with those changes?
+1 |
|
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
|
Sorry for the delay. I finally got around to try to address the review. Please take a look at the changes. |
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>
|
@erlend-aasland can you fix the conflicts and I will land this? Thanks! |
Will do! Thanks for the heads-up. I forgot about this PR :) |
