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

[WIP] rewrite TrustedRandomAccess into two directional variants #120682

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

the8472
Copy link
Member

@the8472 the8472 commented Feb 5, 2024

r? @ghost

@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 Feb 5, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Feb 5, 2024

Still a WIP, so unlikely to be a win, but let's see how it fares.

@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 Feb 5, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 5, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 1fe9ff6 with merge c41af6d...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2024
[WIP] rewrite TrustedRandomAccess into two directional variants

r? `@ghost`
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 5, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c41af6d (c41af6de5079184a32eb650a4aaf13331075a005)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c41af6d): 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)
10.5% [0.2%, 66.3%] 22
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.3%, 3.3%] 13
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.5%, -0.3%] 5
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 8.5% [-0.5%, 66.3%] 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)
10.6% [1.6%, 25.3%] 10
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.0% [0.9%, 4.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.8% [-2.5%, -1.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.1% [-3.1%, -3.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 7.8% [-2.5%, 25.3%] 13

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)
21.2% [2.1%, 69.6%] 11
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 21.2% [2.1%, 69.6%] 11

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)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.3%] 18
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.7%, -0.0%] 30
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.0% [-0.7%, 0.3%] 48

Bootstrap: 660.166s -> 664.017s (0.58%)
Artifact size: 308.14 MiB -> 308.08 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 5, 2024
@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Feb 6, 2024

@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 Feb 6, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 6, 2024

⌛ Trying commit d642974 with merge 65717ef...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2024
[WIP] rewrite TrustedRandomAccess into two directional variants

r? `@ghost`
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 6, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 65717ef (65717efa469952361bb8ebe3cef07ee61f4fa0bc)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (65717ef): 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)
11.0% [0.2%, 66.3%] 21
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.7%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.5% [-0.7%, -0.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.0% [-1.0%, -1.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 9.5% [-0.7%, 66.3%] 24

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)
12.9% [0.1%, 24.1%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.2% [3.2%, 3.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-5.5% [-6.6%, -3.8%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 6.7% [-6.6%, 24.1%] 9

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)
23.0% [1.9%, 69.3%] 10
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 23.0% [1.9%, 69.3%] 10

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)
0.2% [0.1%, 0.7%] 41
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.8%, -0.0%] 16
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-0.8%, 0.7%] 57

Bootstrap: 661.246s -> 663.819s (0.39%)
Artifact size: 308.13 MiB -> 308.12 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 6, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Mar 6, 2024

@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 Mar 6, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 6, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 36d8523 with merge 98b04dc...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2024
[WIP] rewrite TrustedRandomAccess into two directional variants

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 6, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 98b04dc (98b04dc0f1428c6ea620650605130fbf471689e7)

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Mar 6, 2024

@rust-timer build 98b04dc

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (98b04dc): 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)
12.2% [0.2%, 71.3%] 20
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.2%, 1.0%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.0% [-1.3%, -0.6%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 11.0% [-1.3%, 71.3%] 22

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)
10.3% [0.3%, 21.3%] 8
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 8.9% [-2.1%, 21.3%] 9

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)
22.9% [1.4%, 74.5%] 11
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.1% [2.0%, 2.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.6% [-1.6%, -1.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 20.9% [-1.6%, 74.5%] 12

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)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.6%] 62
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.4%, 0.5%] 29
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.7% [-2.3%, -0.1%] 8
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-2.3%, 0.6%] 70

Bootstrap: 644.65s -> 645.998s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 175.06 MiB -> 175.17 MiB (0.06%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 7, 2024
@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Mar 7, 2024

@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 Mar 7, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2024
[WIP] rewrite TrustedRandomAccess into two directional variants

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 7, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 2981354 with merge dd5970f...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 7, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: dd5970f (dd5970f8424a8eedd194cd730a300dd4159d4476)

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 7, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: dd5970f (dd5970f8424a8eedd194cd730a300dd4159d4476)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (dd5970f): 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)
1.8% [0.2%, 5.4%] 16
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.8% [0.4%, 1.0%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-7.3% [-38.2%, -0.2%] 17
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.4% [-2.7%, -2.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-38.2%, 5.4%] 33

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)
3.7% [0.2%, 7.3%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-5.6% [-10.9%, -1.6%] 9
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.3% [-10.9%, 7.3%] 14

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)
3.0% [1.8%, 5.0%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.9% [1.4%, 2.4%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-17.2% [-38.5%, -1.0%] 7
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -7.1% [-38.5%, 5.0%] 14

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)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.6%] 27
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.4%, 0.5%] 29
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.5% [-2.1%, -0.0%] 36
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-2.1%, 0.6%] 63

Bootstrap: 647.822s -> 644.675s (-0.49%)
Artifact size: 172.63 MiB -> 172.70 MiB (0.04%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 7, 2024
@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Mar 7, 2024

MWWHAHAHAHA YESSSSS. I REVERSED THE POLARITY.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 20, 2024
…l, r=<try>

select Vec::from_iter impls in a const block to optimize compile times

This relies on the trick from rust-lang#122301
Split out from rust-lang#120682
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
…l, r=Amanieu

select Vec::from_iter impls in a const block to optimize compile times

Ignoring whitespace diffs should make this easier to review.

This relies on the trick from rust-lang#122301
Split out from rust-lang#120682
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 26, 2024
@Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member

@the8472 any updates on this? do we still need this? thanks

@the8472
Copy link
Member Author

the8472 commented Aug 9, 2024

Yeah I still have more things to try.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. 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.

6 participants