[New-bugs-announce] [issue45923] Improve performance of sys.settracing based tools.

[Mark Shannon]

New submission from Mark Shannon <mark at hotpy.org>:

In our quest for performance, the performance of sys.settracing based tools has probably gotten worse.

1. How do we measure this?
2. How do fix this?

We will initially use coverage.py as proxy for all sys.settracing based tools when measuring  performance.

The fix is probably to use quickening to insert a minimum set of instrumentation instructions required for tracing/profiling.
The existence of `f_trace_opcode` is a bit of a problem however, as we will have to instrument *every* instruction.


Ideally, sys.settracing based tools should be faster on 3.11 than 3.10, but at the least we should provide a simple alternative to sys.settracing that is faster.

----------
assignee: Mark.Shannon
components: Interpreter Core
messages: 407263
nosy: Mark.Shannon, nedbat, pablogsal
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Improve performance of sys.settracing based tools.
type: performance
versions: Python 3.11

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45923>
_______________________________________