On Tue, Jan 10 2023 at 01:12:35 AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel
<devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
