Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity #137563

FractalFir · 2025-02-24T20:01:12Z

This is a tiny change that makes TaskDeps::read_set start preallocated with capacity for 128 elements.

From local profiling, it looks like TaskDeps::read_set is one of the most-often resized hash-sets in rustc.

rustbot · 2025-02-24T20:01:23Z

rustbot has assigned @Noratrieb.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

FractalFir · 2025-02-24T20:04:00Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[Perf experiment] Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 1024 capacity This is a tiny change that makes `TaskDeps::read_set` start preallocated with capacity for 1024 elements(4096 bytes). Somewhat annoyingly, `HashSet::with_capacity` requires the hasher to implement `RandomState`. Since `FxHash` does not implement `RandomState`, I had to use `HashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher`, which required re-exporting `FxBuildHasher` in `rustc_data_structures`. From local profiling, it looks like `TaskDeps::read_set` is one of the most-often resized hash-sets in `rustc`. Local perf runs indicate this is a small perf improvement(without any regressions). There is also no significant RSS increase(the RSS changes are noisy and cancel themselves out almost entirely). Still, since the local and CI results can differ, I'll do a CI perf run before this PR can be reviewed. `@bors` try `@rust-timer` queue

bors · 2025-02-24T20:05:15Z

⌛ Trying commit 02aa397 with merge 0fd98fe...

bors · 2025-02-24T22:05:49Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0fd98fe (0fd98fe325e1591d05ebd43e902c9273501ab6d3)

rust-timer · 2025-02-24T23:21:09Z

Finished benchmarking commit (0fd98fe): 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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.8%	[-5.5%, -0.4%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-5.5%, 0.6%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

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)	1.0%	[0.4%, 2.8%]	25
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.4%, 1.9%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-3.4%, -0.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.5%, -0.4%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-3.4%, 2.8%]	53

Cycles

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary 0.3%)

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)	0.9%	[0.4%, 3.3%]	46
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.4%, 6.3%]	69
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-4.9%, -0.4%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-3.6%, -0.4%]	59
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-4.9%, 3.3%]	91

Binary size

Results (primary -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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1

Bootstrap: 770.447s -> 768.842s (-0.21%)
Artifact size: 359.63 MiB -> 359.69 MiB (0.02%)

FractalFir · 2025-02-24T23:34:44Z

This seems like a perf improvement to me - since the average is down, and the regressions are much smaller than the improvements.

I'll have to look a bit more into the regressions, since, at least at the first glance, some of them seem a bit odd:

Eg. unicode-normalization-0.1.19 opt incr-patched: println sees a regression in the backend, which I don't think this change touches.

FractalFir · 2025-02-25T00:28:46Z

r? @nnethercote Since this is a micro-optimization, I think you are the right person to review this.

What is the general policy for PRs that have both regressions and improvements? Does each regression need to be separately justifed, or do they just need to be outweight by the perf gains?

Mark-Simulacrum · 2025-02-25T02:29:18Z

What is the distribution of sizes of the set? You can probably add a Drop impl and just eprintln! the len() of the set and then pass that through counts or similar to get that.

IOW, is 1024 the right point? Or perhaps 2048, or some other point on the curve -- I could also imagine wanting to jump up (e.g., most sets are 10 elements but then immediately grow to 2048 elements).

nnethercote · 2025-02-25T07:38:03Z

I agree with @Mark-Simulacrum, some counts results would be useful. I don't have any sense how many TaskDeps values are created and how big they get.

bjorn3 · 2025-02-25T11:11:24Z

compiler/rustc_query_system/src/dep_graph/graph.rs

@@ -1299,7 +1299,7 @@ impl Default for TaskDeps {
            #[cfg(debug_assertions)]
            node: None,
            reads: EdgesVec::new(),
-            read_set: FxHashSet::default(),
+            read_set: FxHashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher(1024, FxBuildHasher::default()),


Suggested change

read_set: FxHashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher(1024, FxBuildHasher::default()),

read_set: FxHashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher(1024, Default::default()),

would work too I think.

It works - thanks for the suggestion.

FractalFir · 2025-02-26T21:04:56Z

I did not know about counts - it will probably help a lot with further profiling!

This is the result of counts:

(  1)   577194 (82.8%, 82.8%): read_set.len():0
(  2)    11768 ( 1.7%, 84.5%): read_set.len():9
(  3)    10303 ( 1.5%, 86.0%): read_set.len():8
(  4)     8670 ( 1.2%, 87.2%): read_set.len():11
(  5)     8655 ( 1.2%, 88.5%): read_set.len():10
(  6)     7165 ( 1.0%, 89.5%): read_set.len():12
(  7)     5010 ( 0.7%, 90.2%): read_set.len():16
(  8)     4740 ( 0.7%, 90.9%): read_set.len():14
(  9)     4511 ( 0.6%, 91.5%): read_set.len():13
( 10)     3949 ( 0.6%, 92.1%): read_set.len():17
( 11)     3493 ( 0.5%, 92.6%): read_set.len():18
( 12)     3347 ( 0.5%, 93.1%): read_set.len():15
( 13)     3281 ( 0.5%, 93.6%): read_set.len():19
( 14)     2563 ( 0.4%, 93.9%): read_set.len():20
( 15)     2138 ( 0.3%, 94.2%): read_set.len():23
( 16)     1932 ( 0.3%, 94.5%): read_set.len():21
( 17)     1767 ( 0.3%, 94.8%): read_set.len():22
( 18)     1736 ( 0.2%, 95.0%): read_set.len():24
( 19)     1480 ( 0.2%, 95.2%): read_set.len():27
( 20)     1445 ( 0.2%, 95.4%): read_set.len():25
( 21)     1412 ( 0.2%, 95.6%): read_set.len():32
( 22)     1272 ( 0.2%, 95.8%): read_set.len():26
( 23)     1233 ( 0.2%, 96.0%): read_set.len():33
( 24)     1198 ( 0.2%, 96.2%): read_set.len():29
( 25)     1121 ( 0.2%, 96.3%): read_set.len():28
( 26)     1088 ( 0.2%, 96.5%): read_set.len():39
( 27)      936 ( 0.1%, 96.6%): read_set.len():31
( 28)      823 ( 0.1%, 96.7%): read_set.len():30
( 29)      814 ( 0.1%, 96.8%): read_set.len():34
( 30)      772 ( 0.1%, 97.0%): read_set.len():35
( 31)      737 ( 0.1%, 97.1%): read_set.len():42
( 32)      680 ( 0.1%, 97.2%): read_set.len():45
( 33)      662 ( 0.1%, 97.3%): read_set.len():37
( 34)      630 ( 0.1%, 97.3%): read_set.len():40
( 35)      606 ( 0.1%, 97.4%): read_set.len():38
( 36)      568 ( 0.1%, 97.5%): read_set.len():47
( 37)      565 ( 0.1%, 97.6%): read_set.len():48
( 38)      560 ( 0.1%, 97.7%): read_set.len():41
( 39)      551 ( 0.1%, 97.8%): read_set.len():44
( 40)      545 ( 0.1%, 97.8%): read_set.len():36
( 41)      472 ( 0.1%, 97.9%): read_set.len():49
( 42)      430 ( 0.1%, 98.0%): read_set.len():46
( 43)      423 ( 0.1%, 98.0%): read_set.len():43
( 44)      421 ( 0.1%, 98.1%): read_set.len():50
( 45)      417 ( 0.1%, 98.1%): read_set.len():51
( 46)      390 ( 0.1%, 98.2%): read_set.len():60
( 47)      325 ( 0.0%, 98.2%): read_set.len():52
( 48)      308 ( 0.0%, 98.3%): read_set.len():56
( 49)      286 ( 0.0%, 98.3%): read_set.len():62
( 50)      278 ( 0.0%, 98.4%): read_set.len():55
( 51)      274 ( 0.0%, 98.4%): read_set.len():59
( 52)      268 ( 0.0%, 98.4%): read_set.len():53
( 53)      268 ( 0.0%, 98.5%): read_set.len():54
( 54)      248 ( 0.0%, 98.5%): read_set.len():57
( 55)      231 ( 0.0%, 98.6%): read_set.len():61
( 56)      220 ( 0.0%, 98.6%): read_set.len():78
( 57)      219 ( 0.0%, 98.6%): read_set.len():64
( 58)      208 ( 0.0%, 98.6%): read_set.len():68
( 59)      191 ( 0.0%, 98.7%): read_set.len():58
( 60)      176 ( 0.0%, 98.7%): read_set.len():65
( 61)      173 ( 0.0%, 98.7%): read_set.len():69
( 62)      168 ( 0.0%, 98.7%): read_set.len():116
( 63)      168 ( 0.0%, 98.8%): read_set.len():74
( 64)      162 ( 0.0%, 98.8%): read_set.len():80
( 65)      159 ( 0.0%, 98.8%): read_set.len():67
( 66)      142 ( 0.0%, 98.8%): read_set.len():63
( 67)      141 ( 0.0%, 98.9%): read_set.len():66
( 68)      141 ( 0.0%, 98.9%): read_set.len():70
( 69)      141 ( 0.0%, 98.9%): read_set.len():72
( 70)      120 ( 0.0%, 98.9%): read_set.len():71
( 71)      117 ( 0.0%, 98.9%): read_set.len():76
( 72)      116 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():75
( 73)      111 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():77
( 74)      107 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():79
( 75)      107 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():81
( 76)      105 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():86
( 77)       99 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():85
( 78)       93 ( 0.0%, 99.0%): read_set.len():112
( 79)       92 ( 0.0%, 99.1%): read_set.len():91

So, it seems like this HashSet is usually either empty, or it has < 128 elements in it. I'll see if 128 elements is better locally.

FractalFir · 2025-02-26T21:26:13Z

I have done some more testing, and 128 seems to be a better cap for performance.

Additonally, I have discovered(by printing the caller on each resize) that ~30% of all resizes of HashSets occur within this file.

(  1)   118543 (28.3%, 28.3%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "/home/michal/rust/compiler/rustc_query_system/src/dep_graph/graph.rs", line: 511, col: 40 }
(  2)    84689 (20.2%, 48.6%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "/home/michal/rust/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/obligation_forest/mod.rs", line: 678, col: 37 }
(  3)    32348 ( 7.7%, 56.3%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "/home/michal/rust/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/transitive_relation.rs", line: 104, col: 20 }
(  4)    28910 ( 6.9%, 63.2%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "/home/michal/rust/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/elaborate.rs", line: 97, col: 30 }
(  5)    26681 ( 6.4%, 69.6%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs", line: 852, col: 28 }
(  6)    18466 ( 4.4%, 74.0%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "/home/michal/rust/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/scc/mod.rs", line: 689, col: 57 }
(  7)    16360 ( 3.9%, 77.9%): Resizing insert from Location { file: "compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late.rs", line: 3918, col: 44 }

nnethercote · 2025-02-26T23:55:32Z

counts is invaluable for this kind of profiling, I use it all the time.

Do you want to do another perf run with the limit set to 128 or even 64?

FractalFir · 2025-02-27T15:15:59Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[Perf experiment] Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 1024 capacity This is a tiny change that makes `TaskDeps::read_set` start preallocated with capacity for 1024 elements(4096 bytes). Somewhat annoyingly, `HashSet::with_capacity` requires the hasher to implement `RandomState`. Since `FxHash` does not implement `RandomState`, I had to use `HashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher`, which required re-exporting `FxBuildHasher` in `rustc_data_structures`. From local profiling, it looks like `TaskDeps::read_set` is one of the most-often resized hash-sets in `rustc`. Local perf runs indicate this is a small perf improvement(without any regressions). There is also no significant RSS increase(the RSS changes are noisy and cancel themselves out almost entirely). Still, since the local and CI results can differ, I'll do a CI perf run before this PR can be reviewed. `@bors` try `@rust-timer` queue

bors · 2025-02-27T15:17:10Z

⌛ Trying commit e100fd4 with merge a21e95e...

bors · 2025-02-27T17:16:42Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a21e95e (a21e95e41580e2394a6be7b196d7fff5cd833ee1)

Kobzol · 2025-02-28T09:04:18Z

@rust-timer build a21e95e

rust-timer · 2025-02-28T10:19:28Z

Finished benchmarking commit (a21e95e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

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)	2.9%	[2.8%, 3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary 7.7%)

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)	7.7%	[7.6%, 7.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.531s -> 770.268s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 361.97 MiB -> 361.95 MiB (-0.01%)

FractalFir · 2025-02-28T11:05:13Z

I think this is ready to merge - since it is a perf imporvement, and a 1-line change.

nnethercote · 2025-02-28T11:15:06Z

@bors r+

bors · 2025-02-28T11:15:10Z

📌 Commit e100fd4 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-02-28T11:15:10Z

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

…rcote Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity This is a tiny change that makes `TaskDeps::read_set` start preallocated with capacity for 128 elements. From local profiling, it looks like `TaskDeps::read_set` is one of the most-often resized hash-sets in `rustc`.

bors · 2025-03-09T09:27:39Z

⌛ Testing commit e100fd4 with merge 4f52199...

bors · 2025-03-09T12:28:41Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing 4f52199 to master...

rust-log-analyzer · 2025-03-09T12:29:11Z

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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


gh pr comment ${HEAD_PR} -F output.log
shell: /usr/bin/bash -e {0}
##[endgroup]
fatal: ambiguous argument 'HEAD^1': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
##[error]Process completed with exit code 128.

rust-timer · 2025-03-09T13:45:21Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4f52199): 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)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.7%, secondary -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)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-3.9%, -0.9%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 765.189s -> 765.417s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 362.04 MiB -> 362.05 MiB (0.00%)

rustbot assigned Noratrieb Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 24, 2025

rustbot assigned nnethercote and unassigned Noratrieb Feb 25, 2025

bjorn3 reviewed Feb 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

FractalFir force-pushed the dep_graph_cap branch from 02aa397 to e2a8bc0 Compare February 27, 2025 15:06

rustbot added has-merge-commits PR has merge commits, merge with caution. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Changed the dependency graph to start preallocated with 128 capacity

e100fd4

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. perf-regression Performance regression. labels Feb 28, 2025

FractalFir changed the title ~~[Perf experiment] Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 1024 capacity~~ [Perf experiment] Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity Feb 28, 2025

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 Feb 28, 2025

nnethercote changed the title ~~[Perf experiment] Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity~~ Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity Feb 28, 2025

nnethercote changed the title ~~Changed TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity~~ Change TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity Feb 28, 2025

nnethercote changed the title ~~Change TaskDeps to start with preallocated with 128 capacity~~ Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity Feb 28, 2025

Noratrieb mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2025

Rollup of 42 pull requests #138086

Closed

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 9, 2025

bors merged commit 4f52199 into rust-lang:master Mar 9, 2025
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.87.0 milestone Mar 9, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity #137563

Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity #137563

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rustbot commented Feb 24, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Feb 24, 2025

bors commented Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 24, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 25, 2025

Mark-Simulacrum commented Feb 25, 2025

nnethercote commented Feb 25, 2025

bjorn3 Feb 25, 2025

FractalFir Feb 25, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 26, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nnethercote commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

This comment has been minimized.

FractalFir commented Feb 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Feb 27, 2025

bors commented Feb 27, 2025

Kobzol commented Feb 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 28, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 28, 2025

nnethercote commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Mar 9, 2025

rust-timer commented Mar 9, 2025

	read_set: FxHashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher(1024, FxBuildHasher::default()),
	read_set: FxHashSet::with_capacity_and_hasher(1024, Default::default()),

Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity #137563

Change TaskDeps to start preallocated with 128 capacity #137563

Conversation

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025 • edited Loading

rustbot commented Feb 24, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Feb 24, 2025

bors commented Feb 24, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 24, 2025

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

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 25, 2025

Mark-Simulacrum commented Feb 25, 2025

nnethercote commented Feb 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FractalFir commented Feb 26, 2025

FractalFir commented Feb 26, 2025 • edited Loading

nnethercote commented Feb 26, 2025 • edited Loading

This comment has been minimized.

FractalFir commented Feb 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Feb 27, 2025

bors commented Feb 27, 2025

Kobzol commented Feb 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 28, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

FractalFir commented Feb 28, 2025

nnethercote commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Feb 28, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Mar 9, 2025

rust-timer commented Mar 9, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

FractalFir commented Feb 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

FractalFir commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nnethercote commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading