More stack-related performance improvements #2844
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mxschmitt
approved these changes
May 12, 2025
|
@mxschmitt Sorry, I accidentally closed and reopened the pull request '-_- |
|
@mxschmitt Woohoo, thanks! ^_^ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Building off of #2835, this PR replaces the remaining instances of
stack()withstack(0), so that we avoid getting context information for the first frame of the stack, which is expensive.I also discovered that we were calling
traceback.format_list(traceback.extract_stack()[-10:]), which does the following:To fix this, I've made
extract_stack()use thelimit=10parameter.Finally, I optimized
_path_utils.pyto only retrieve two frames from the stack, instead of retrieving the entire stack and then discarding everything but the second frame :)