-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Update measureme crate to version 11 #119111
Conversation
The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri These commits modify the If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged. |
|
That Cargo.lock is curious though. |
rustc-perf mostly relies on the commandline tools, IIUC. The only place a measureme crate is pulled in as dependency is here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-perf/blob/dc2ac6a2d637a567332c5e41d825a365b5ed7561/site/Cargo.toml#L42 It takes the version from the master branch. I don't recommend that but at least it should stay up-to-date. |
So in linked script https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-perf/blob/cbdf7fbe93760db6be2ce9b4c27ba4bdea332971/collector/collect.sh#L23 commit not pinned too. |
This should also fix #119103 |
@bors try @rust-timer queue Let's see if perf.RLO handles it. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Update measureme crate to version 11.0.0 perf.rlo has been updated to use 11.0.0 already, so it should be able to handle the new file format. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` Fixes rust-lang#99282 Fixes rust-lang#119103
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (a19277d): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action neededBenchmarking 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 Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 672.757s -> 671.691s (-0.16%) |
It doesn't work, so I'll update rustc-perf to the new measureme. (edit: rust-lang/rustc-perf#1779) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
r=me when ready 👍
@bors try |
Update measureme crate to version 11.0.0 perf.rlo has been updated to use 11.0.0 already, so it should be able to handle the new file format. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` Fixes rust-lang#99282 Fixes rust-lang#119103
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
The update is merged on rustc-perf and deployed, and everything seems to work fine: the after or diff self-profile page for example, or other processed links like flamegraph, codegen-schedule or Perfetto/crox (I'm not sure if FF's profiler currently works). @bors r=wesleywiser,lqd |
Could not assign reviewer from: |
The 11.0.1 release which fixes the big-endian compilation error is out. @rustbot ready |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Update measureme crate to version 11 perf.rlo has been updated to use 11.0.0 already, so it should be able to handle the new file format. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` Fixes rust-lang#99282 Fixes rust-lang#119103
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
It shouldn't for our perf.rlo uses, as the previous successful runs with v11 showed. For people running |
(happy to r=me if we don't want to wait for confirmation, but I figured it's cheap to check) |
No block ofc, just possible todo. |
We can wait for results for sure. However, I wanted to do the bump to ease @klensy's mind but couldn't: 11.0.1 wasn't pushed to the stable branch, and rustc-perf's site and collector will be on 11.0.0 for the results. |
Finished benchmarking commit (98c5468): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking 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 Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 663.55s -> 662.594s (-0.14%) |
@lqd, there's a PR open to update the stable branch: rust-lang/measureme#224 You could try to r+ it via bors. I'm not sure about the exact permissions at the moment (but I think we should give r+ to wg-performance). |
The perf run results seem to be displayed normally. @bors r=Mark-Simulacrum |
(According to the |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (25b706c): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 666.76s -> 664.038s (-0.41%) |
perf.rlo has been updated to use 11.0.0 already, so it should be able to handle the new file format.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Fixes #99282
Fixes #119103