Invoke a query only when it doesn't return immediately anyway

[oli-obk]

This should cause less query key caching and less dep graph data, hopefully resulting in some perf improvements

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

rustbot has assigned @davidtwco.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 34976ac with merge fe326a7...

[davidtwco]

r=me if perf good, etc.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fe326a7 (fe326a7df676bde79e6e9894aeb59a9ac62a6468)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fe326a7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary 2.9%)

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)	2.9%	[2.5%, 3.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 6.4%)

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)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.4%	[6.4%, 6.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.6%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 772.321s -> 775.795s (0.45%)
Artifact size: 365.45 MiB -> 365.33 MiB (-0.03%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r=davidtwco

the perf regression is happening on other completely unrelated PRs, too. The specific tests are flaky lately, too

[bors]

📌 Commit 34976ac has been approved by davidtwco

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 34976ac with merge fc6bfe0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing fc6bfe0 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 1b9efcd (parent) -> fc6bfe0 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard fc6bfe09aa946afae36b1964512a818156a8e781 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-apple: 8024.5s -> 11680.5s (45.6%)
2. dist-apple-various: 6020.4s -> 8040.1s (33.5%)
3. x86_64-apple-2: 5306.3s -> 6973.2s (31.4%)
4. dist-aarch64-apple: 6382.1s -> 5194.2s (-18.6%)
5. dist-arm-linux: 5456.0s -> 4586.5s (-15.9%)
6. dist-riscv64-linux: 5069.7s -> 5530.0s (9.1%)
7. i686-msvc-2: 6953.3s -> 7407.5s (6.5%)
8. test-various: 4072.8s -> 4273.9s (4.9%)
9. dist-android: 2514.1s -> 2627.4s (4.5%)
10. dist-armv7-linux: 5318.5s -> 5519.3s (3.8%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fc6bfe0): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.9%)

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)	2.4%	[2.1%, 2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-6.3%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -1.9%, secondary -2.7%)

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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.3%, -1.8%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 771.756s -> 772.492s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 365.46 MiB -> 365.46 MiB (0.00%)