Skip to content

Conversation

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal commented Nov 24, 2025

The flamegraph profiler now collects thread state information (GIL held, GIL released, waiting for GIL, and garbage collection activity) during sampling and displays it in an interactive statistics bar. This helps users identify GIL contention and understand thread behavior patterns.

Statistics are calculated both in aggregate and per-thread. When filtering the flamegraph to a specific thread, the display updates to show that thread's metrics. In GIL-only profiling mode, GIL-related statistics are hidden since they aren't meaningful in that context.

Per-thread GC percentages now use total samples as the denominator instead of per-thread sample counts. This makes them directly comparable with aggregate statistics and easier to interpret when threads appear in different numbers of samples.

…raph profiler

The flamegraph profiler now collects thread state information (GIL held,
GIL released, waiting for GIL, and garbage collection activity) during
sampling and displays it in an interactive statistics bar. This helps users
identify GIL contention and understand thread behavior patterns.

Statistics are calculated both in aggregate and per-thread. When filtering
the flamegraph to a specific thread, the display updates to show that
thread's metrics. In GIL-only profiling mode, GIL-related statistics are
hidden since they aren't meaningful in that context.

The collection logic was refactored to process each sample in a single pass
rather than iterating through threads multiple times. GC frame detection now
uses a shared helper that consistently handles both tuple and object frame
formats.

Per-thread GC percentages now use total samples as the denominator instead
of per-thread sample counts. This makes them directly comparable with
aggregate statistics and easier to interpret when threads appear in different
numbers of samples.

The JavaScript includes null checks for DOM access and validates data
availability before rendering. Tests verify the JSON structure, percentage
calculations, and edge cases like zero samples, using only public APIs.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

CC @ivonastojanovic

Copy link
Contributor

@ivonastojanovic ivonastojanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me! One small thing: for the percentages in the thread-stats-bar, maybe we should use the same rounding as the flamegraph nodes so everything is consistent.

pablogsal and others added 2 commits November 30, 2025 01:04
Co-authored-by: ivonastojanovic <80911834+ivonastojanovic@users.noreply.github.com>
@pablogsal pablogsal enabled auto-merge (squash) November 30, 2025 01:27
@pablogsal pablogsal merged commit ea51e74 into python:main Nov 30, 2025
46 checks passed
@pablogsal pablogsal deleted the flamegraph-better branch November 30, 2025 01:42
StanFromIreland pushed a commit to StanFromIreland/cpython that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2025
…ython#141900)

Co-authored-by: ivonastojanovic <80911834+ivonastojanovic@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants