-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.1k
[DO NOT MERGE] Check performance hit of emitting full metadata in check mode #149457
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
Conversation
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[DO NOT MERGE] Check performance hit of emitting full metadata in check mode
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)For more information how to resolve CI failures of this job, visit this link. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (fbd25dd): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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 12.3%, secondary 7.7%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 21.8%, secondary 31.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 471.605s -> 471.164s (-0.09%) |
In rust-lang/rfcs#3881 (comment) we are discussing how much this perf hit actually is. It was up to 10% when this optimization was originally done. It is not clear if this is still the case or what exactly is responsible for this big of a hit.