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

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops #120762

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

saethlin
Copy link
Member

@saethlin saethlin commented Feb 8, 2024

r? @ghost

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 8, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 6d8cb55 to b9947b3 Compare February 8, 2024 00:33
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Feb 8, 2024

@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 Feb 8, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 8, 2024

⌛ Trying commit b9947b3 with merge a8aa174...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 8, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a8aa174 (a8aa1746af7b61b15a32955c227c47dfb0d7c57f)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a8aa174): 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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.8%] 12
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.4%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 0.8%] 12

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)
3.9% [0.5%, 10.4%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.5% [-4.3%, -2.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [-4.3%, 10.4%] 8

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)
1.2% [1.2%, 1.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-6.2% [-6.2%, -6.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [-0.6%, 1.2%] 2

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%, 0.5%] 35
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.1%, 0.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.9%, -0.0%] 31
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.0% [-0.9%, 0.5%] 66

Bootstrap: 662.945s -> 662.852s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 308.24 MiB -> 308.20 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 8, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from b9947b3 to 8063335 Compare February 10, 2024 11:19
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@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 Feb 10, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 10, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 8063335 with merge 3d763f6...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 10, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3d763f6 (3d763f6f496d0fd5c25aa650565c36c1775499ba)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (3d763f6): 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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 6

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)
4.3% [0.4%, 7.3%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-8.0% [-10.7%, -5.7%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.3% [-3.3%, -3.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.8% [-10.7%, 7.3%] 8

Cycles

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

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%, 0.7%] 45
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-1.1%, -0.0%] 17
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-1.1%, 0.7%] 62

Bootstrap: 666.007s -> 668.01s (0.30%)
Artifact size: 308.04 MiB -> 307.93 MiB (-0.04%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 10, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 8063335 to 2c76737 Compare February 14, 2024 04:18
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

Now with LLVM 18!
@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 Feb 14, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 2c76737 with merge 61c0f10...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 61c0f10 (61c0f10e6445b193248a77f2cf0bd59fead8bfd3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (61c0f10): 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)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.7%] 17
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.3%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.8% [-1.8%, -1.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-1.1%, 0.7%] 18

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)
0.4% [0.4%, 0.4%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-5.2% [-8.8%, -1.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.4% [-8.8%, 0.4%] 3

Cycles

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

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)
0.3% [0.0%, 0.8%] 45
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.0%, 1.8%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.5%, -0.0%] 11
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.5%, 0.8%] 56

Bootstrap: 631.732s -> 631.938s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 305.05 MiB -> 305.02 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 14, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

Looks like these aren't helping as much as they cost.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 2b2e8e7 to 92f65c2 Compare September 12, 2024 03:56
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@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 Sep 12, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 92f65c2 with merge f693f6c...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f693f6c (f693f6c00252e3709f0c1c7c77263c74f31a605a)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f693f6c): 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)
0.3% [0.2%, 1.4%] 23
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [-0.2%, 1.4%] 24

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary 3.1%)

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)
2.6% [2.1%, 3.1%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.1% [2.1%, 3.7%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-7.1% [-8.6%, -5.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.3% [-8.6%, 3.1%] 4

Cycles

Results (primary 1.6%)

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)
1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary -0.1%)

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)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.3%] 19
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.2%, -0.0%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.0%] 36
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.2%, 0.3%] 29

Bootstrap: 756.901s -> 758.744s (0.24%)
Artifact size: 341.35 MiB -> 341.32 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 12, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC 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 Oct 9, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 92f65c2 to cba05f7 Compare January 28, 2025 05:06
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from cba05f7 to eeb79ca Compare January 28, 2025 05:45
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from eeb79ca to 1f4a2bc Compare March 14, 2025 16:36
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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants