bump tracing

[klensy]

Unpins tracing: linked issue looks fixed, tokio-rs/tracing#2635 referencing davidbarsky/tracing-tree#82

Perf run please, as changelog says about improvements https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/blob/tracing-0.1.40/tracing/CHANGELOG.md https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/blob/tracing-core-0.1.32/tracing-core/CHANGELOG.md

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d58137b with merge 8836382...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 8836382 (88363822a28a0948a97d6b5667cfc8bc2c00c6b2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8836382): 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)	4.0%	[0.4%, 8.9%]	265
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[0.6%, 24.5%]	250
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.0%	[0.4%, 8.9%]	265

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 4.2%)

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)	2.1%	[0.6%, 5.2%]	49
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[1.0%, 8.8%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[0.6%, 5.2%]	49

Cycles

Results (primary 3.6%, secondary 6.3%)

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)	3.6%	[0.6%, 8.7%]	224
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.3%	[0.4%, 33.5%]	184
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[0.6%, 8.7%]	224

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 718.904s -> 758.823s (5.55%)
Artifact size: 328.18 MiB -> 347.19 MiB (5.79%)

[klensy]

Haha, nice improvements.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

It looks like the costs are pretty spread out across (presumably) the tracing callsites, not any specific costs. It would be good to do a more detailed analysis and work with tracing maintainers to see if there are avoidable costs here (e.g., we should be looking to land some adjustments or revert things).

[klensy]

Ok, size regression appears when bumping tracing 0.1.37 to 0.1.38 https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/commits/tracing-0.1.38/tracing

 [[package]]
 name = "tracing"
-version = "0.1.37"
+version = "0.1.38"
 source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
-checksum = "8ce8c33a8d48bd45d624a6e523445fd21ec13d3653cd51f681abf67418f54eb8"
+checksum = "cf9cf6a813d3f40c88b0b6b6f29a5c95c6cdbf97c1f9cc53fb820200f5ad814d"
 dependencies = [
- "cfg-if",
  "pin-project-lite",
  "tracing-attributes",
  "tracing-core",

The winner is tokio-rs/tracing#2555

[klensy]

Weird, the same binary size regression appears if bump tracing-core 0.1.30 to 0.1.31.

[klensy]

on x86_64-pc-windows-msvc: stage0 rustc_driver
t - tracing, tc - tracing-core

incremental	master	tc-0.1.31	tc-0.1.32	t-0.1.38	t-0.1.40+tc-0.1.32
false	134966(16561)	134923(16564)	134927(16564)	142845(16562)	142145(16564)
true	127270(19239)	127242(19242)	127242(19242)	135595(19239)	134925(19242)

in cells: kbytes (exported symbols)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@rustbot author

Not sure whether the size investigation is the most warranted, but in any case, I don't think we should land this until we understand what happened and either revert those changes upstream or decide to accept them.