I think your point is that what we show with wall_clock_breakdown: true is not a log. That’s why we don’t want it to be affected by the log level. If that’s the case, how about introducing something like print_dict?

I think your point is that what we show with wall_clock_breakdown: true is not a log. That’s why we don’t want it to be affected by the log level.

That's correct, Masahiro. It's a data dump.

If that’s the case, how about introducing something like print_dict?

I'm not sure what you mean, please clarify or exemplify what you mean - perhaps in the context of this PR if it'd help?

I'm not sure what you mean, please clarify or exemplify what you mean - perhaps in the context of this PR if it'd help?

Sorry for the typo, I meant making a new function print_dist instead of log_dist to clarify it is not a log output.
If log_dist's default behavior is using logger, it is not very clear what use_logger==False means.

Thank you for clarifying, Masahiro. I'd be happy to improve this further.

Since log_dist has so much logic in it, replicating it is probably not a great idea, perhaps adding a wrapper then? so keeping the code as I suggested and then adding:

def print_dist(*args, **kwargs):
    """ same logic as log_dist but uses print instead of logger """
    log_dist(*args, **kwargs, use_logger==False)

(or using partial)

and using it at the calling point?

unless you object to the mod to log_dist, in which case we should rip out all of the log_dist logic except the last line into a new helper util and then add 2 wrappers instead, that will use this util?

def print_dist(...):
    string = helper(...)
    if string is not None: print(string)

def log_dist(...):
    string = helper(...)
    if string is not None: logger.log(string)

Either way works for me.

Thank you for your response, @stas00.

I think the first approach should be sufficient though the second approach is cleaner.
Also, I don't think this is urgent.

If we don't do it now, we won't do it, let's complete this while it's "hot" - @sfc-gh-truwase, do you have a preference for the 2 options I proposed 2 comments up as a follow up to Masahiro's suggestion?

@stas00 let's go with the second approach, which I agree is cleaner.

please have a look #7621