1072598 - Ship profile.sh and dependent scripts with private builds

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Infrastructure, defect)

Description

[Wander Lairson Costa]

Ship profile.sh and depedent scripts so we can profile non-dev builds.

Comment 1

[Wander Lairson Costa]

Attachment: Include profiling script in the emulator.tar.gz file

Comment 2

[Benoit Girard (:BenWa)]

Profiling the emulator? Yukk! We should discourage people to do extensive profiling there.

Comment 3

[Wander Lairson Costa]

Attachment: bug1072598.patch

Comment 4

[Wander Lairson Costa]

(In reply to Benoit Girard (:BenWa) from comment #2)
> Profiling the emulator? Yukk! We should discourage people to do extensive
> profiling there.

Well, :lightsofapollo told me we should ship it with emulators...

Comment 5

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Comment on attachment 8496178 [details] [diff] [review]
bug1072598.patch

Seems fine to me from a packaging point of view. If you're planning to uplift to other branches then you can do that a=NPOTB, just watch out that there may be some more platforms on older branches.

Do we need MOZ_PROFILING=1 exported at build time too ? Question was prompted by https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/Profiling_with_the_Built-in_Profiler
If so, does that impact people who may be dogfooding on flame ?

Comment 6

[Wander Lairson Costa]

(In reply to Nick Thomas [:nthomas] from comment #5)
> Comment on attachment 8496178 [details] [diff] [review]
> bug1072598.patch
> 
> Seems fine to me from a packaging point of view. If you're planning to
> uplift to other branches then you can do that a=NPOTB, just watch out that
> there may be some more platforms on older branches.
> 

lightsofapollo, are we going to push this to other branches?

> Do we need MOZ_PROFILING=1 exported at build time too ? Question was
> prompted by
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/
> Profiling_with_the_Built-in_Profiler
> If so, does that impact people who may be dogfooding on flame ?

Not necessarily, without MOZ_PROFILING we still get some useful information.

Comment 7

[Wander Lairson Costa]

After talking with :lightsofapollo, we came to the conclusion that there is no point in shipping profiling scripts with the emulators.

Comment 8

[James Lal [:lightsofapollo]]

Yeah it would be ideal to get this on 2.1 if possible.

Comment 9

[Wander Lairson Costa]

(In reply to James Lal [:lightsofapollo] from comment #8)
> Yeah it would be ideal to get this on 2.1 if possible.

There a lot more patches that should go into 2.1 (Bug 1061796), is 2.1 open for feature patches?

Comment 10

[Wander Lairson Costa]

(In reply to Wander Lairson Costa [:wcosta] from comment #9)
> (In reply to James Lal [:lightsofapollo] from comment #8)
> > Yeah it would be ideal to get this on 2.1 if possible.
> 
> There a lot more patches that should go into 2.1 (Bug 1061796), is 2.1 open
> for feature patches?

After a talk with :lightsofapollo, we concluded that we can postpone this on 2.1.

Comment 11

[Wander Lairson Costa]

Try run results: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=a73b60fc1373

Comment 12

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

(In reply to Wander Lairson Costa [:wcosta] from comment #9)
> There a lot more patches that should go into 2.1 (Bug 1061796), is 2.1 open
> for feature patches?

You'd need to talk to the people doing the approvals for aurora, eg bajaj.

Comment 13

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/3a445397349f

Comment 14

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3a445397349f