Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

perf: revert #99212 #99905

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

davidtwco
Copy link
Member

Reverts #99212 to check the performance impact of that pull request. I don't expect that we'll need to land this - if a perf impact is revealed then I'll submit a new PR that fixes it.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jul 29, 2022
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @nagisa

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 29, 2022
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

r? @ghost

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 29, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2022

⌛ Trying commit 4078ee4 with merge cd02069df6812a8a1be9589e05a040bb6fc16b4e...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cd02069df6812a8a1be9589e05a040bb6fc16b4e (cd02069df6812a8a1be9589e05a040bb6fc16b4e)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued cd02069df6812a8a1be9589e05a040bb6fc16b4e with parent 2f847b8, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (cd02069df6812a8a1be9589e05a040bb6fc16b4e): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
0.8% 1.0% 3
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.3% -2.6% 8
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-1.1% -2.4% 39
All 😿🎉 (primary) -1.3% -2.6% 8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.4% 3.4% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-3.0% -3.1% 2
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: mixed results
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
2.7% 2.9% 2
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
2.6% 2.6% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-2.7% -3.0% 2
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) -0.0% -3.0% 4

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 30, 2022
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

It should be possible to negate the perf impact of #99212, I'll look into it and close this for now.

@davidtwco davidtwco closed this Jul 30, 2022
@davidtwco davidtwco deleted the perf-revert-99212 branch July 30, 2022 10:25
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 12, 2022
…ercote

passes: load `defined_lib_features` query less

Hopefully addresses the perf regressions from rust-lang#99212 (see rust-lang#99905).

Re-structure the stability checks for library features to avoid calling `defined_lib_features` for any more crates than necessary for each of the implications or local feature attributes that need validation.

r? `@ghost` (just checking perf at first)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants