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

mark vec::IntoIter pointers as !nonnull #114205

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2024
Merged

Conversation

the8472
Copy link
Member

@the8472 the8472 commented Jul 29, 2023

This applies the same NonNull optimizations to vec::IntoIter as #113344 did for slice::Iter

Godbolt showing the test IR on current nightly, note the absence of !nonnull on the loads.

r? @scottmcm

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 29, 2023
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Jul 29, 2023

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 29, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2023

⌛ Trying commit d65f21c8e91179cbd468cc480ad8401a80cce423 with merge 31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7 (31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

r=me, assuming perf comes back tolerable

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.6% [0.3%, 1.1%] 27
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.5%, 0.6%] 8
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.3%, 1.1%] 27

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)
2.7% [1.5%, 6.7%] 8
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-4.3% [-7.1%, -1.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.8% [-7.1%, 6.7%] 11

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.4%] 38
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.5%, -0.0%] 6
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-0.5%, 0.4%] 44

Bootstrap: 651.072s -> 649.517s (-0.24%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jul 30, 2023
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

r=me, assuming perf comes back tolerable

Overall result: ❌ regressions

Gonna assume that's a no.
@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 30, 2023
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

nom-json win of minus 16% speedup

...maybe that's a justification tho'.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Jul 30, 2023

We don't have charts for the runtime benchmarks yet so it's hard to eyeball how significant that is.

Plus most of the regressions are in incremental with the dep-graph growing a bit. I don't know what that means, but maybe there's some fat that can be shaved off.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Jul 31, 2023

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 31, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 31, 2023

⌛ Trying commit 899d960 with merge ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53...

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jul 31, 2023

We don't have charts for the runtime benchmarks yet so it's hard to eyeball how significant that is.

I'll try to add charts and possibly also some cachegrind diff so that we can examine what causes these runtime benchmark changes.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 31, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53 (ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Dec 21, 2023

subtrahend
subtracted

platform-specific IR naming? Fun...

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Jan 3, 2024

@bors r=scottmcm

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 3, 2024

📌 Commit 6a1ad55 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 3, 2024

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 3, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2024
mark vec::IntoIter pointers as `!nonnull`

This applies the same NonNull optimizations to `vec::IntoIter` as  rust-lang#113344 did for `slice::Iter`

[Godbolt](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/n1cTea718) showing the test IR on current nightly, note the absence of `!nonnull` on the loads.

r? `@scottmcm`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 4, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 6a1ad55 with merge c6821b8...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 4, 2024

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jan 4, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 6, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #119662) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Jan 7, 2024

@bors r=scottmcm

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 7, 2024

📌 Commit 93b34a5 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 7, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 7, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 93b34a5 with merge 9522993...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 7, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing 9522993 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 7, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 9522993 into rust-lang:master Jan 7, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.77.0 milestone Jan 7, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9522993): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)
0.7% [0.6%, 0.8%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-0.4%, 0.8%] 3

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)
3.3% [0.4%, 4.9%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.6% [-3.4%, -1.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-5.9% [-9.6%, -3.8%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.6% [-3.4%, 4.9%] 7

Cycles

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

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)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.8%] 37
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 41

Bootstrap: 667.475s -> 668.625s (0.17%)
Artifact size: 308.53 MiB -> 308.39 MiB (-0.05%)

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants