Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

I understand why it could be useful to have this in asyncio. But I'm big -1 on rushing this functionality in 3.7. asyncio is no longer provisional, so we have to be careful when we design new APIs for it. Example: I wanted to add support for Task groups to asyncio. A similar concept exists in

Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

Agree, poll_start and poll_end suit much better. Thanks for the feedback. On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:34 AM, INADA Naoki wrote: For this proposal [4], POC, I've preferred make a reduced list of events: * `loop_start` : Executed when the loop starts for the

Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

Hi Yuri, Its good to know that we are on the same page regarding the lack of a feature that should be a must. Since Asyncio has become stable and widely used by many organizations - such as us [1], the needs of tools that allow us to instrumentalize asynchronous code that runs on top of Asyncio

Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

>>> For this proposal [4], POC, I've preferred make a reduced list of events: >>> >>> * `loop_start` : Executed when the loop starts for the first time. >>> * `tick_start` : Executed when a new loop tick is started. >>> * `io_start` : Executed when a new IO process starts. >>> * `io_end` :

Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

HI Antonie, Regarding your questions > > What does it mean exactly? Is it the ratio of CPU time over wall clock > time? This can be considered a metric that informs you how much CPU resources are being consumed by your loop, in the best case scenario where there is only your process, this

Re: [Async-sig] Asyncio loop instrumentation

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:32:21 +0100 Pau Freixes wrote: > > These new implementation of the load method - remember that it returns > a load factor between 0.0 and 1.0 that inform you about how bussy is > your loop - What does it mean exactly? Is it the ratio of CPU time over