RFC: Sequence Point feature#1376
Draft
slomp wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is an experiment with adding "sequence point" instrumentation directives to Tracy.
The use case here is asynchronous compute chains/graphs, especially those driven by callbacks chains.
You'd use
TracySeqCreate()to request a unique sequence identifier, and pass that id along toTarcySeqResume(id)andTracySeqSuspend(id)at each "continuation" scope. At the end of the processing, you'dTracySeqRetire(id)it. Later, in the profiler GUI, hovering over a sequenced zone would show arrows pointing to the previous and next sequence point zones.In addition, if you right-click on a zone that belongs to a sequence point, there's the option to "flatten" it to a "virtual thread" in order to visualize it in isolation in the timeline.
Context: over the years, I managed to workaround just by using
TRACY_FIBERSas a way to define "virtual threads", and then assigning each async compute chain to one such virtual thread.Curious to know other people's opinion. There's a (vibe-coded)
examples/seqto demonstrate the feature.Screen.Recording.2026-05-28.at.11.11.11.AM.mp4