-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.9k
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move #147907
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
💔 Test for 6516a74 failed: CI. Failed jobs:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
💔 Test for b7ef2e7 failed: CI. Failed jobs:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (23a3fb3): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowBenchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 0.9%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.0%, secondary 4.2%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (primary 1.2%, secondary 9.6%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 473.5s -> 472.703s (-0.17%) |
What happens if we only change |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Can we just queue a second run before the first one happened...? @bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perf experiment: try to replace box_new with write_via_move
$crate::boxed::Box::leak($crate::boxed::Box::new_uninit()).assume_init_mut() | ||
}, | ||
[$($x),+], | ||
)) |
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.
Dang, I think this is still wrong -- if $x
panics, this won't deallocate the Box
.
I was trying very hard to avoid having an intrinsic marked as safe that isn't actually safe, but that might not be possible. (We wouldn't need any of this if we had safe
blocks but sadly, while they have been requested since Rust 1.0, we still don't have those.)
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
Finished benchmarking commit (94a44ae): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowBenchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 3.6%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.3%, secondary 6.8%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (primary 1.2%, secondary 12.3%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 474.484s -> 475.534s (0.22%) |
Even just changing |
No description provided.