Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] unpack-trees: add performance tracing

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2018, 19:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kYLpCZ=JNO7eun3mrhui+rymzr3i-VMLyFvKCxOaFNe-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180813192526.GC10013@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:25 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> I can buy the argument that it's nice to have some form of profiling
> that works everywhere, even if it's lowest-common-denominator. I just
> wonder if we could be investing effort into tooling around existing
> solutions that will end up more powerful and flexible in the long run.

The issue AFAICT is that running perf is done by $YOU, the specialist, whereas the performance framework put into place here can be "turned on for the whole fleet" and the ability to collect data from non-specialists is there. (Note: At GitHub you do the serving side, whereas Google, MS also control the shipped binary on the client side; asking a random engineer to run perf on their Git thing only helps their special case and is unstructured; what helps is colorful dashboards aggregating all the results from all the people).

So it really is "works everywhere," but not as you envisioned (cross platform vs more machines) ;-)