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

Querify should_codegen_locally #133016

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

saethlin
Copy link
Member

@saethlin saethlin commented Nov 13, 2024

I think this has a very strong interaction with #132566, and may not be justifiable without that PR, so marking this as blocked until that is merged.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 13, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@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 Nov 13, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 13, 2024

⌛ Trying commit d76f61a with merge 13e9145...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2024
…lly, r=<try>

Querify should_codegen_locally

r? ghost
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 14, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 13e9145 (13e91459a570d36348328cd0874716a583d38bc5)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (13e9145): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.5% [0.2%, 1.2%] 21
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.1% [0.6%, 1.7%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.8%, -0.2%] 8
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.1% [-3.5%, -0.3%] 11
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.8%, 1.2%] 29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 4.2%)

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)
1.2% [0.5%, 2.0%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.2% [4.2%, 4.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.2% [-1.2%, -1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.9% [-1.2%, 2.0%] 8

Cycles

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary -2.3%)

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)
2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.3% [-3.1%, -1.5%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 787.023s -> 786.487s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 335.29 MiB -> 335.34 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 Nov 14, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the querify-should-codegen-locally branch from d76f61a to 0844b06 Compare November 14, 2024 03:04
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@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 Nov 14, 2024
@saethlin saethlin 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 Nov 14, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2024
…lly, r=<try>

Querify should_codegen_locally

r? ghost
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 14, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 0844b06 with merge 559a096...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 14, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 559a096 (559a0961f6ed09a3a6fc1d63ea3173194b54db40)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (559a096): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.9%] 15
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.4%, 0.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.5% [-0.8%, -0.2%] 11
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.0% [-3.3%, -0.3%] 13
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.8%, 0.9%] 26

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 4.4%)

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)
1.2% [0.6%, 2.3%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.4% [4.4%, 4.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-1.4%, -0.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [-1.4%, 2.3%] 7

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 3.8%)

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)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.8% [2.4%, 5.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 787.023s -> 786.502s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 335.29 MiB -> 335.34 MiB (0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 14, 2024
@saethlin saethlin added the S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. label Nov 15, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the querify-should-codegen-locally branch from 0844b06 to 99abe39 Compare November 17, 2024 15:09
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@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 Nov 17, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 17, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 99abe39 with merge f1c7352...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2024
…lly, r=<try>

Querify should_codegen_locally

I think this has a very strong interaction with rust-lang#132566, and may not be justifiable without that PR, so marking this as blocked until that is merged.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 17, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f1c7352 (f1c73524fe838baa4c8fee5a38ec15c248ea4e4d)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f1c7352): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.5%, -0.2%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.1% [-0.5%, 0.4%] 8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 3.3%)

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)
1.9% [1.9%, 1.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.3% [3.3%, 3.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.2% [-1.2%, -1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-1.2%, 1.9%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.0%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [1.8%, 2.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 787.86s -> 789.875s (0.26%)
Artifact size: 335.54 MiB -> 335.43 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 17, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the querify-should-codegen-locally branch from 99abe39 to 60962ec Compare December 8, 2024 13:30
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Dec 8, 2024

Re-perfing because this interacts with polymorphization
@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 Dec 8, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 8, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 60962ec with merge 6d11a59...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2024
…lly, r=<try>

Querify should_codegen_locally

I think this has a very strong interaction with rust-lang#132566, and may not be justifiable without that PR, so marking this as blocked until that is merged.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 8, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 6d11a59 (6d11a59e10d1000f53b66ab4f61d5e00a5fb4ac8)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (6d11a59): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.2% [0.1%, 0.3%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.3%, 0.9%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.5%, -0.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.3%, -0.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.5%, 0.3%] 8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary 2.4%)

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)
2.0% [1.6%, 2.5%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.8% [-2.5%, -1.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [-2.5%, 2.5%] 9

Cycles

Results (secondary 6.3%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
6.3% [6.3%, 6.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Bootstrap: 766.757s -> 768.425s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 330.86 MiB -> 330.85 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. 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.

4 participants