Skip to content

Fast path for register_region_obligation #141129

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 18, 2025
Merged

Fast path for register_region_obligation #141129

merged 1 commit into from
May 18, 2025

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors commented May 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

If a type has no params, infer, placeholder, or non-'static free regions, then we can skip registering outlives obligations since the type has no components which affect lifetime checking in an interesting way.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label May 17, 2025
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 17, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 17, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 83d8e03 with merge d04c987...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 17, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#141129 - compiler-errors:register-region-obl,…
d04c987 
… r=<try>

Fast path for `register_region_obligation`

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 17, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d04c987 (d04c9870ee2261756aec64f0cdefa09dc0581231)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d04c987): 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)		 1.0% [1.0%, 1.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 29
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.2% [-0.5%, -0.0%] 13
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, 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)		 3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.6% [1.6%, 3.7%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.7% [-2.6%, -1.0%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.1% [-1.7%, -0.6%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.2% [-2.6%, 3.0%] 11

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.7%)

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)		 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.0% [-2.7%, -0.4%] 8
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 775.66s -> 776.299s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 365.38 MiB -> 365.29 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 May 17, 2025
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

r? @lcnr or @oli-obk

@compiler-errors compiler-errors marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2025 19:31
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 17, 2025
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

This is marked as "perf regression" but it only regresses on nalgebra, which has been super bimodal recently afaict.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented May 18, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 18, 2025

📌 Commit 98cdb82 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 18, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 18, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 98cdb82 with merge 7205fc5...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 18, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 7205fc5 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 18, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 7205fc5 into rust-lang:master May 18, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone May 18, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

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 ae3b909 (parent) -> 7205fc5 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 1 test diff

Stage 2

  • [run-make] tests/run-make/compressed-debuginfo-zstd: ignore (ignored if LLVM wasn't build with zstd for ELF section compression (we want LLVM/LLD to be built with zstd support)) -> pass (J0)

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 7205fc537d0fe8c3c2560b313e54fcb91ab6f3d1 --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. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 3986.9s -> 2561.0s (-35.8%)
  2. dist-aarch64-linux: 5552.0s -> 7517.0s (35.4%)
  3. mingw-check: 1811.3s -> 1234.2s (-31.9%)
  4. armhf-gnu: 6148.3s -> 4454.5s (-27.5%)
  5. test-various: 5648.0s -> 4194.6s (-25.7%)
  6. x86_64-gnu: 8363.9s -> 6226.2s (-25.6%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-nopt: 7261.3s -> 5471.8s (-24.6%)
  8. x86_64-gnu-stable: 8702.2s -> 6579.4s (-24.4%)
  9. x86_64-gnu-aux: 7796.2s -> 5985.4s (-23.2%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-tools: 7645.3s -> 6028.5s (-21.1%)
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.

@compiler-errors compiler-errors deleted the register-region-obl branch May 18, 2025 12:37
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (7205fc5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 30
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.5% [-1.0%, -0.0%] 12
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.8%, secondary -0.7%)

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)		 4.1% [1.0%, 7.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.8% [-6.0%, -1.0%] 8
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.8% [-3.1%, -0.5%] 17
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.8% [-6.0%, -1.0%] 8

Cycles

Results (secondary -1.1%)

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.1% [-1.8%, -0.5%] 11
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.393s -> 777.426s (0.00%)
Artifact size: 365.45 MiB -> 365.44 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label May 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@lcnr lcnr

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.89.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@compiler-errors @rust-timer @bors @oli-obk @lcnr @rustbot