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

rustc_error, rustc_private: Switch to stable hash containers #99334

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 12, 2022

Conversation

NiklasJonsson
Copy link
Contributor

Relates #84447

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jul 16, 2022
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @oli-obk

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 16, 2022
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 17, 2022

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 18, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2022

⌛ Trying commit 865159dc76fa3721f1e0cf91d081c93ce8cbaa47 with merge b95c278d582803f03bad441057a05138712e2f25...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b95c278d582803f03bad441057a05138712e2f25 (b95c278d582803f03bad441057a05138712e2f25)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued b95c278d582803f03bad441057a05138712e2f25 with parent e1d9a20, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b95c278d582803f03bad441057a05138712e2f25): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
2.4% 3.2% 6
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
2.8% 3.3% 6
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.8% -2.9% 2
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) -1.8% -2.9% 2

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
2.1% 2.1% 1
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
4.5% 4.5% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) 2.1% 2.1% 1

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jul 18, 2022
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jul 18, 2022

Looks like inlining noise?

 -508,515,235  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder as rustc_middle::ty::fold::FallibleTypeFolder>::try_fold_ty
  484,595,721  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::Ty as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeSuperFoldable>::super_fold_with::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>
   76,934,404  ???:<&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::Ty> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>
   26,431,538  ???:<&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::subst::GenericArg> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>
  -15,727,388  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::Ty as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::fold_with::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>
   14,149,038  ???:rustc_middle::ty::util::fold_list::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder, rustc_middle::ty::Ty, <&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::Ty> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>::{closure
   -7,081,191  ???:rustc_middle::ty::util::fold_list::<rustc_borrowck::region_infer::opaque_types::ReverseMapper, rustc_middle::ty::Ty, <&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::Ty> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with<rustc_borrowck::region_infer::opaque_types::ReverseMapper>::{closure
    5,114,388  ???:<&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::Ty> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with::<rustc_borrowck::region_infer::opaque_types::ReverseMapper>
    5,039,302  ???:rustc_middle::ty::util::fold_list::<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder, rustc_middle::ty::subst::GenericArg, <&rustc_middle::ty::list::List<rustc_middle::ty::subst::GenericArg> as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with<rustc_middle::ty::fold::RegionFolder>::{closure

@NiklasJonsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like inlining noise?

What does this mean? That the heuristics governing inlining are triggering differently and creating noise in the benchmark?

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Sep 1, 2022

discussed in today's T-compiler triage meeting.

That regression (to a single secondary benchmark deeply-nested-multi) should not block moving this work forward.

I skimmed over it and it looks okay to me.

So r=me once conflicts are resolved.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Sep 1, 2022

@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 Sep 1, 2022
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 1, 2022

yea, I have no idea what else it could be from that cachegrind run. I'd say we take the "hit". It may randomly unregress with other changes again.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 1, 2022

Sorry for forgetting about this PR. Please rebase and we'll send it off

@bors rollup=never

@NiklasJonsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

No worries, I haven't been very active for a few months anyway.

@rustbot ready

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 12, 2022

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2022

📌 Commit 8d3c30c has been approved by oli-obk

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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 12, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 8d3c30c with merge 5c6f92731524f08fc06fc677876ff0d23932f3fd...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2022

💔 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 Sep 12, 2022
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 12, 2022

@bors retry openssl timeout

@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 Sep 12, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 8d3c30c with merge 52e003a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 52e003a to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 12, 2022
@bors bors merged commit 52e003a into rust-lang:master Sep 12, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.65.0 milestone Sep 12, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (52e003a): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.3% [0.7%, 2.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.7% [-1.7%, -1.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2

  2. number of relevant changes 2

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Sep 12, 2022
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2022
…oli-obk

rustc_error, rustc_private: Switch to stable hash containers

Relates rust-lang#84447
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. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants