On Tue, Jan 10 2023 at 01:12:35 AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For speed: https://valgrind.org/info/tools.html#cachegrind or https://valgrind.org/info/tools.html#callgrind with (in both cases) https://apps.kde.org/kcachegrind/ For memory (RAM) usage: https://valgrind.org/info/tools.html#massif with https://apps.kde.org/massif-visualizer/
None of these are acceptable alternatives to sysprof. We need to be able to profile the entire desktop all at once; that point has been repeated many times and heavily emphasized throughout this discussion. So valgrind tools might be great at what they do, but they are not adequate replacements for sysprof. We also need to be able to profile applications that are already running, since sometimes we don't know how an application gets into a bad state that triggers a performance problem: if you can't initiate profiling once you've noticed the application running slow, then fixing the problem in impractical.
You've previously indicated that developers should just 'dnf distro-sync' to an alternative Fedora that has frame pointers, as if building two alternate versions of Fedora, one for developers and one for users, is a reasonable thing to do. The cost of this is just too high. We'd need double build infrastructure.
A 2.5% runtime slowdown won't make Fedora "unusable" like you claim. It will make us look mildly bad on benchmarks. The cost is clearly well worth the benefit in my opinion, but it's OK to disagree on this.
Michael _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
