Inline some functions that show up in perf runs

[oli-obk]

r? @ghost

trying to address the perf regression from #104533 (comment)

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit fac9722 with merge 51cc590a19876f01803b16ce03ab8a9533f79a2a...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 51cc590a19876f01803b16ce03ab8a9533f79a2a (51cc590a19876f01803b16ce03ab8a9533f79a2a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (51cc590a19876f01803b16ce03ab8a9533f79a2a): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.7%	[3.5%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 54be18f with merge 0b7076a388860a9d230f43d0c06368e371d18439...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0b7076a388860a9d230f43d0c06368e371d18439 (0b7076a388860a9d230f43d0c06368e371d18439)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0b7076a388860a9d230f43d0c06368e371d18439): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

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

[Kobzol]

I would hope that these kinds of #[inline] changes won't do anything, now that we use LTO.

[oli-obk]

Well... I have really hard time telling where the actual regression is, so I was hoping to change inlining behaviour enough to not have random llvm decisions drown out what I'm looking for

[oli-obk]

All of the regressions have been improved above and beyond the regression by unrelated changes. I'm not sure how to continue hunting down these regressions, from the cachegrind traces they mostly look like inlining noise