Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update guide: "Easy profiling for Node.js" #449

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update guide: "Easy profiling for Node.js" #449

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

matthewloring
Copy link
Contributor

Instructions on using the tick processor now use the flag on the Node.js
binary --prof-process which was introduced in v5.2.0.

Fixes #447

Instructions on using the tick processor now use the flag on the Node.js
binary --prof-process which was introduced in v5.2.0.

Fixes #447
@matthewloring
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @Trott

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jan 7, 2016

LGTM


```
node <path_to_nodejs_src>/tools/v8-prof/tick-processor.js isolate-0x101804c00-v8.log >processed.txt
node --prof-process isolate-0x101804c00-v8.log >processed.txt
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: We probably want to find some way to generalize the file name. I wouldn't hold this up for that, though, if that is likely to be the source of much bike-shedding.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we please keep the old command as well for users of 4.2 (LTS)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Based on the discussion here, it seems likely that this change will land in LTS. My hope is to update the guide at that time to move the required version back from 5.2.0 to 4.2.x.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Trott I thought the way you handled this generalization in #446 was good. I would be happy waiting for that one to land and then merging this change on top.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If someone wants to merge #446, great! If you'd rather just add that change into here yourself, that's great too!

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 added the content Issues/pr concerning content label Jan 13, 2016
@phillipj phillipj mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2016
phillipj added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2016
@phillipj
Copy link
Member

Closing this in favor of #449. Guessing it could be re-opened if --prof-process gets backported to 4.x.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
content Issues/pr concerning content
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants