Rollup of 4 pull requests

[GuillaumeGomez]

Successful merges:

• rustdoc: replace elemIsInParent with Node.contains #118296 (rustdoc: replace elemIsInParent with Node.contains)
• Clean dead codes #118302 (Clean dead codes)
• merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure #118311 (merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure)
• Remove myself from users on vacation #118318 (Remove myself from users on vacation)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors r+ p=4 rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit cb04603 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit cb04603 with merge 3bb0171...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 3bb0171 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#118296	rustdoc: replace elemIsInParent with Node.contains	c05994dd166842892e730b1b507abbeaf8d19193 (link)
#118302	Clean dead codes	acb2eaa1daf0858d32b5bc02106d6d266bdead0e (link)
#118311	merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure	e030b89ed8a2d53655cf781b82e1679128798b51 (link)
#118318	Remove myself from users on vacation	34d5ea8fb2e6a54241f91e616eb7ac1b169b9d35 (link)

previous master: 3dbb4da042

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3bb0171): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	23
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 1.0%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	23

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)	7.7%	[7.7%, 7.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.5%, 3.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-3.0%, -1.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.0%	[-3.5%, 7.8%]	3

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)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 674.133s -> 676.117s (0.29%)
Artifact size: 313.38 MiB -> 313.33 MiB (-0.02%)

[nnethercote]

Some perf regressions, I figure it's gotta be #118311 (cc @bvanjoi), the other three can't possibly have affected perf. Let's check:

@rust-timer build e030b89

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e030b89): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	31
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.0%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	31

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)	7.7%	[7.6%, 7.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[2.8%, 3.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.1%	[-3.2%, 7.8%]	3

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 674.133s -> 674.45s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 313.38 MiB -> 313.36 MiB (-0.01%)

[pnkfelix]

Visiting for perf triage

• The bulk (in this case > 0.31%) of the primary regressions are to bitmaps and libc, in a variety of incremental modes.
• nnethercote noted that this seems like it must be PR merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure #118311 ("merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind
  ::Closure"), and confirmed it by benchmarking that specific commit.
• follow-up PR's have been proposed, but we have not successfully found one that undoes the regression.
• meanwhile, a follow-on PR, resolve: Feed the def_kind query immediately on DefId creation #118188, has landed that is coupled to merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure #118311. This PR resolve: Feed the def_kind query immediately on DefId creation #118188 seems to have wide benefits. So it may not be worthwhile to spend time trying to figure out the regression injected by merge DefKind::Coroutine into Defkind::Closure #118311.
• not marking as triaged yet.