Chrome tracing

[Gregory Szorc]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan <bos at serpentine.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I support having dedicated code for annotating well-defined and important
>> Mercurial operations in tracing/profiling logs. I have a hunch that the
>> kinds of things we need to annotate shouldn't be called with a high enough
>> frequency for probe overhead to matter.
>>
>
> Right.
>
>
>> But if it does, the use of context managers can be beneficial, as those
>> are evaluated at module load time and the context manager can be made to
>> no-op and return the original function unless tracing is enabled. That's
>> *almost* 0 cost.
>>
>
> That's exactly what the implementation does :-)
>
>
>> Something else to consider is the interaction between tracing and
>> progress bars. I posit that most places we use progress bars are places
>> we'd want to use the proposed tracing.duration() context manager. I reckon
>> we could integrate tracing into the progress APIs and kill 2 birds with 1
>> stone.
>>
>
> That's again almost exactly what the implementation does, but it uses the
> Chrome trace feature of tracking a numeric quantity instead. It's like you
> read my mind ... or the patches!
>

OK, you caught me: I only glanced at your patches ;)

I look forward to seeing this feature patchbombed!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20170215/14774840/attachment.html>