Skip to content

[PERF] eagerly compute sub_relations again #140752

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr lcnr commented May 7, 2025

perf run for #140375

r? ghost

lcnr added 5 commits May 6, 2025 20:24
While still only using them for diagnostics. We could use them for cycle
detection in generalization and it seems desirable to do so in the future.
However, this is unsound with the old trait solver as its cache does not track
these `sub_relations` in any way. We would also need to consider them
when canonicalizing as otherwise instantiating the canonical response may
fail.
This allows canonical queries to also rely on them in the future.
It also means it would now be sound to rely on `sub_relations` in
the generalizer.
@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. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) labels May 7, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 7, 2025

changes to the core type system

cc @compiler-errors, @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented May 7, 2025

@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 May 7, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 7, 2025
[PERF] eagerly compute `sub_relations` again

perf run for rust-lang#140375

r? ghost
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 7, 2025

⌛ Trying commit df02bca with merge bbf9bd9...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 7, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bbf9bd9 (bbf9bd9b2ad0b23fbdadc8617ba2e471df4eb608)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (bbf9bd9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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%, 1.4%] 85
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.2%, 0.7%] 39
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 1.4%] 85

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 3.2%)

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%, 3.9%] 12
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.2% [2.2%, 4.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.4% [-2.0%, -0.9%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-2.0%, 3.9%] 16

Cycles

Results (primary 0.4%)

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)
0.6% [0.4%, 1.0%] 17
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-0.6%, 1.0%] 20

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.356s -> 768.561s (-0.23%)
Artifact size: 365.20 MiB -> 365.06 MiB (-0.04%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels May 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. 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. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants