[perf] test MCP510

[lqd]

r? @ghost

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 793c8e6 with merge 4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c)

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

$  cargo +4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c build -q && readelf -p .comment ./target/debug/helloworld

String dump of section '.comment':
  [     0]  GCC: (Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1) 11.3.0
  [    2d]  Linker: LLD 16.0.5

Looks like yes?

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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-perf -perf-regression

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

• rustc

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-32.7%	[-74.0%, -3.7%]	74
All ❌✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-28.4%	[-64.8%, -3.3%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28

Binary size

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20

Bootstrap: missing data

[lqd]

The data gathering is done so I'll close this for now, but may reopen to rerun crater on these new try artifacts.

[lqd]

test whether fork works + jemalloc apr 2023 @bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit bca9839 with merge e033294...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e033294 (e033294ef8e0245dbfa4d8da3d0dde8229f87bba)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build e033294

[lqd]

jemalloc Nov 2023 production revision @bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f25727d with merge d3bb357...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e033294): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	86
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	48
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	86

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-2.1%, -1.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.1%, 1.0%]	3

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 767.333s -> 767.386s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 332.08 MiB -> 330.99 MiB (-0.33%)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d3bb357 (d3bb35737202290c12a82051e63c86c8937835e4)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build d3bb357

[lqd]

jemalloc Sept 2024 production revision @bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2a6cf8e with merge d1126e1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d1126e1 (d1126e1b973af77f6856cb2a27ff2a6816405d57)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build d1126e1

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d3bb357): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	73
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	53
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	73

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.2%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.3%, -3.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 767.254s -> 766.376s (-0.11%)
Artifact size: 331.98 MiB -> 330.94 MiB (-0.31%)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build d1126e1

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d1126e1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	131
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	96
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	131

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.4%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.5%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-5.1%, -1.8%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 766.323s -> 766.801s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 332.01 MiB -> 331.10 MiB (-0.27%)

[lqd]

interesting