WIP: Perf test using a RwLock unconditionally

[oli-obk]

cc #115401

r? @ghost

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 931a32b with merge a98ee4da00e2f3970f15a93978aee0cb8690e925...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job mingw-check failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

GITHUB_ENV=/home/runner/work/_temp/_runner_file_commands/set_env_9dfb21a8-9c9d-462b-a8d4-72569b84942c
GITHUB_EVENT_NAME=pull_request
GITHUB_EVENT_PATH=/home/runner/work/_temp/_github_workflow/event.json
GITHUB_GRAPHQL_URL=https://api.github.com/graphql
GITHUB_HEAD_REF=rwlockification
GITHUB_JOB=pr
GITHUB_PATH=/home/runner/work/_temp/_runner_file_commands/add_path_9dfb21a8-9c9d-462b-a8d4-72569b84942c
GITHUB_REF=refs/pull/115557/merge
GITHUB_REF_NAME=115557/merge
GITHUB_REF_PROTECTED=false
---
   Compiling coverage_test_macros v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/coverage/test_macros)
    Checking rustc_ast_passes v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_ast_passes)
    Checking rustc_expand v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_expand)
    Checking rustc_builtin_macros v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_builtin_macros)
error[E0277]: `std::cell::UnsafeCell<Definitions>` doesn't implement `DynSync`. Add it to `rustc_data_structures::marker` or use `IntoDynSyncSend` if it's already `Sync`
   --> compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs:98:33
    |
98  |         sync::assert_dyn_sync::<ImplicitCtxt<'_, '_>>();
    |                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ within `ImplicitCtxt<'_, '_>`, the trait `DynSync` is not implemented for `std::cell::UnsafeCell<Definitions>`
    |
note: required because it appears within the type `RwLock<Definitions>`
    |
    |
80  | pub struct RwLock<T: ?Sized> {
note: required because it appears within the type `Untracked`
   --> /checkout/compiler/rustc_session/src/cstore.rs:260:12
    |
260 | pub struct Untracked {
---
    |            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: required by a bound in `assert_dyn_sync`
   --> /checkout/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/marker.rs:188:36
    |
188 | pub fn assert_dyn_sync<T: ?Sized + DynSync>() {}
    |                                    ^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `assert_dyn_sync`
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.
error: could not compile `rustc_middle` (lib) due to previous error
warning: build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
error: could not compile `rustc_middle` (lib test) due to previous error

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a98ee4da00e2f3970f15a93978aee0cb8690e925 (a98ee4da00e2f3970f15a93978aee0cb8690e925)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a98ee4da00e2f3970f15a93978aee0cb8690e925): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	111
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.2%, 1.8%]	44
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	111

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	2.0%	[1.2%, 3.9%]	53
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[1.4%, 3.9%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[1.2%, 3.9%]	53

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 628.68s -> 628.249s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 316.31 MiB -> 316.42 MiB (0.03%)