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

Ignore intrinsics::assume in MIR inlining cost estimation #118626

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

saethlin
Copy link
Member

@saethlin saethlin commented Dec 5, 2023

r? @ghost

@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 Dec 5, 2023
@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 Dec 5, 2023
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Dec 5, 2023

@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 5, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 5, 2023

⌛ Trying commit 7e95ff7 with merge 921c05b...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
Ignore intrinsics::assume in MIR inlining cost estimation

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 5, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 921c05b (921c05bb370bac6dc518d3a25c30bdf563bf7c1e)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (921c05b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.1% [0.9%, 1.2%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.4% [-2.2%, -0.4%] 10
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.4%, 0.6%] 4

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)
5.6% [5.6%, 5.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.3% [-3.8%, -2.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.5% [-4.5%, -4.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-3.8%, 5.6%] 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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.1% [1.0%, 5.6%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.8% [-3.8%, -3.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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)
0.2% [0.0%, 3.3%] 28
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.2%, 3.3%] 29

Bootstrap: 672.674s -> 672.972s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 314.14 MiB -> 314.31 MiB (0.05%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Dec 5, 2023
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Dec 5, 2023

This does not invert the perf regression from #116915

The effect of this PR also seems rather confusing. Wish we had an inlining diff sigh

@saethlin saethlin closed this Dec 5, 2023
@saethlin saethlin deleted the ignore-assumes-cost branch December 5, 2023 21:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. 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