PEP 831: Frame pointers

[pablogsal]

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

• PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
• Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
  • Motivation
  • Specification
  • Rationale
  • Backwards Compatibility
  • Security Implications
  • How to Teach This
  • Reference Implementation
  • Rejected Ideas
  • Open Issues
  • Acknowledgements
  • Footnotes
  • Change History
• Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
• Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
• Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4896.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0831/

[savannahostrowski]

Given the numbers we've seen, we should update 0.5-2%...if we're rounding up?

[hugovk]

Formatting suggestions.

[markshannon]

Very compelling.

I'd added a few quick comments on the first part of the PEP.

This is long, and might be a bit much to expect anyone to read through in one go.
Maybe some of the supporting analyses could be moved into appendices and linked to from the body of the PEP?

For example, the detailed, but long, analyses of perf and ebpf tools could be moved to appendices.

[pablogsal]

Thanks for the thorough review Mark! Addressed all the inline comments (cross-references to data, clarified the Gregg quote, softened language, added Windows mention, etc). Re: length and moving content to appendices, that is a fair point. I will move the eBPF and perf investigation to the appendix.

trust me bro