cache type sizes in type-size limit visitor

[lqd]

This is basically #125507 (comment) as lcnr can't open the PR now.

Locally it reduces the itertools regression by quite a bit, to "only +50%" compared to nightly (that includes overhead from the local lack of artifact post-processing, and is just a data point to compare to the 10-20x timings without the cache).

Benchmark 1: cargo +stage1 build --release
  Time (mean ± σ):      2.721 s ±  0.009 s    [User: 2.446 s, System: 0.325 s]
  Range (min … max):    2.710 s …  2.738 s    10 runs

Benchmark 2: cargo +nightly build --release
  Time (mean ± σ):      1.784 s ±  0.005 s    [User: 1.540 s, System: 0.279 s]
  Range (min … max):    1.778 s …  1.792 s    10 runs

Summary
  cargo +nightly build --release ran
    1.52 ± 0.01 times faster than cargo +stage1 build --release

On master, it's from 34s to the 2.7s above.

r? compiler-errors

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 96312fb with merge 9ac628f...

[lqd]

The joys of --keep-stage 1 and not running tests 👍 .

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 529a3f4 with merge 83217ae...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 83217ae (83217ae97e94eb43ce31396b49a938608f7f9c06)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (83217ae): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.5%, 0.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.6%, -0.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-99.4%	[-99.8%, -99.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.6%, 0.3%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[1.5%, 4.7%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 1.8%, secondary -99.0%)

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-99.0%	[-99.6%, -98.6%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 742.585s -> 701.096s (-5.59%)
Artifact size: 327.63 MiB -> 327.61 MiB (-0.01%)

[lqd]

This should be ready to review, as at least a first step to reduce the problem.

deeply-nested-multi works via bumping the limit, and back closer to regular numbers with this caching: from the last PR where it worked

itertools looks to be back to the expected range in the bootstrap numbers: from

@rustbot ready

[compiler-errors]

comparison url using the start of #125507's perf run and the end is this commit. Looks like we fixed everything unless I just can't read?

https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=2db4ff40af2b9f93b6240dbd67ed7f2f34b19776&end=83217ae97e94eb43ce31396b49a938608f7f9c06&stat=instructions:u

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 529a3f4 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 529a3f4 with merge cc8da78...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing cc8da78 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cc8da78): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.6%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-85.4%	[-99.8%, -1.9%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.6%, 0.3%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.0%, secondary 1.0%)

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)	1.8%	[0.8%, 2.9%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.7%, -0.8%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -98.9%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-98.9%	[-99.6%, -98.5%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 721.419s -> 698.879s (-3.12%)
Artifact size: 328.24 MiB -> 328.27 MiB (0.01%)

[Kobzol]

Resolved a perf. regression from #125507.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged