Le 19 nov. 2016 21:29, "serge guelton" <sguelton@quarkslab.com> a écrit :
> Thanks *a lot* victor for this great article. You not only very
> accurately describe the method you used to track the performance bug,
> but also give very convincing results.

You're welcome. I'm not 100% sure that adding the hot attrbute makes the performance of call_method reliable at 100%. My hope is that the 70% slowdown doesn't reoccur.

> I still wonder what the conclusion should be:
> - (this) Micro benchmarks are not relevant at all, they are sensible to minor
>   factors that are not relevant to bigger applications

Other benchmarks had peaks: logging_silent and json_loads. I'm unable to say if microbenchmarks must be used or not to cehck for performance regression or test the performance of a patch. So I try instead to analyze and fix performance issues.

At least I can say that temporary peaks are higher and more frequent on microbenchmark.

Homework: define what is a microbenchmark :-)

> - There is a generally good code layout that favors most applications?

This is an hard question. I don't know the answer. The hot attributes put tagged functions in a separated ELF section, but I understand that inside the section, order is not deterministic.

Maybe the size of a function code matters too. What happens if a function grows? Does it impact other functions?

>   Maybe some core function from the interpreter ?

I chose to only tag the most famous functions of the core right now. I'm testing tagging functions of extensions like json but I'm not sure that the result is significant.

> Why does PGO fails to
>   ``find'' them?

I don't use PGO on speed-python.

I'm not sure that is PGO is reliable neither (reproductible performance).