bpo-44348: Move trace-info to thread-state #26623
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
markshannon
force-pushed
the
move-trace-info-to-thread-state
branch
from
d254683 to
aadd103
Compare
Member
Fidget-Spinner
left a comment
Fidget-Spinner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first part of the change moving PyTraceInfo into thread state and the following refactoring LGTM. Thanks.
I don't have the expertise to verify the second part about the subtle tracing bug.
Contributor
|
Do these performance enhancement PRs have microbenchmarks that show the improvements? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reduces the C stack consumption of
_PyEval_EvalFrameDefaulta bit.Also fixes a subtle bug when tracing is turned on in the middle of the line, and the last traced line was after the current line.
Previously, this resulting in tracing the current line, as the interpreter perceived this as a backwards branch. Which was wrong.
This PR fixes it by making the decision of whether to trace based solely on the current instruction and the last one executed (in the same frame).
https://bugs.python.org/issue44348