Skip to content

Conversation

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor

@jdonszelmann jdonszelmann commented Dec 8, 2025

r? @nnethercote

reverts #149060 because of perf regressions that are still wild to me

@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 8, 2025
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Dec 8, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer qeueu

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Command cannot be empty

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2025
…r=<try>

Revert "early return on duplicate span lowerings"
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Dec 8, 2025

@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, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@nnethercote nnethercote left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

r=me assuming CI results improve perf as expected.

View changes since this review

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Dec 8, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 27357a8 (27357a8796972732fc079d7ac78205ab2fdc7545, parent: 03d7ad7dd67d71f1ef1a790fcb4ceb2484ced761)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (27357a8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.3% [-0.7%, -0.1%] 71
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-0.8%, -0.0%] 72
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-0.7%, -0.1%] 71

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -2.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.3% [-2.3%, -2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.7% [-2.7%, -2.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.4% [-2.3%, 1.6%] 2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -2.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.4% [-2.5%, -2.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-4.2%, -1.3%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.4% [-2.5%, -2.2%] 2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 472.922s -> 471.827s (-0.23%)
Artifact size: 389.01 MiB -> 388.96 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 8, 2025
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Dec 8, 2025

Looks like the regression was real.

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=nnethercote

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 8, 2025

📌 Commit 942a08b has been approved by nnethercote

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 Dec 8, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 9, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 942a08b with merge e2893f7...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 9, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing e2893f7 to main...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 9, 2025
@bors bors merged commit e2893f7 into rust-lang:main Dec 9, 2025
13 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Dec 9, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 9, 2025

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 d5525a7 (parent) -> e2893f7 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 3 test diffs

3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard e2893f7c95e45f74c8bc5dbd033486c5bfaa4deb --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. aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 2493.4s -> 2086.6s (-16.3%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 6031.4s -> 5110.6s (-15.3%)
  3. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 2822.1s -> 2399.9s (-15.0%)
  4. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 8685.2s -> 7405.3s (-14.7%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3514.4s -> 3003.9s (-14.5%)
  6. dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw: 5732.6s -> 6556.2s (+14.4%)
  7. aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3927.0s -> 3379.4s (-13.9%)
  8. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 3220.6s -> 2807.8s (-12.8%)
  9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3: 6564.3s -> 5752.6s (-12.4%)
  10. dist-aarch64-msvc: 5434.6s -> 6104.0s (+12.3%)
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
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e2893f7): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.1%, 0.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.3% [-0.7%, -0.1%] 69
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.8%, -0.0%] 71
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-0.7%, -0.1%] 69

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.3% [3.3%, 3.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 472.272s -> 471.528s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 389.04 MiB -> 388.98 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Dec 9, 2025
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Dec 16, 2025

Revert of a previous performance regression.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Dec 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. 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

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants