Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public. #116316

cjgillot · 2023-10-01T14:47:09Z

This PR attempts to avoid re-computing check_private_in_public query. First by marking the query as non-eval_always, and by reducing the amount of accesses to HIR as much as possible.

Latest perf #116316 (comment) shows that we manage it. The cost is extra dep-graph bookkeeping.

rustbot · 2023-10-01T14:47:16Z

r? @WaffleLapkin

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

cjgillot · 2023-10-01T14:47:22Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-01T14:48:31Z

⌛ Trying commit 9a97744 with merge 812ab76...

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

bors · 2023-10-01T16:01:29Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 812ab76 (812ab768194c21ae867bde408151983b4f228327)

rust-timer · 2023-10-02T02:43:14Z

Finished benchmarking commit (812ab76): 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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.8%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29

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)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.2%, -2.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	5

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 627.128s -> 628.596s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 273.31 MiB -> 273.30 MiB (-0.00%)

asquared31415 · 2023-10-02T21:15:04Z

The perf data looks odd to me, a significant portion of the regressions, including all of the regressions above 1%, have a seemingly spurious downwards spike at the very end of the 30 day graph of similar magnitude to the reported increase for each of those tests.

edit: That may not be spurious improvements, the previous commit was a PR that was expected to have performance improvements. I'm still not convinced that this change should have completely undone them though.

cjgillot · 2023-10-03T18:13:25Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-03T18:14:34Z

⌛ Trying commit 1da8198 with merge cba27a0...

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

bors · 2023-10-03T19:28:37Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cba27a0 (cba27a05c3d7a5f0ce190594f875d21511b1d732)

rust-timer · 2023-10-03T21:14:59Z

Finished benchmarking commit (cba27a0): 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 620.955s -> 621.494s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 271.99 MiB -> 272.04 MiB (0.02%)

petrochenkov · 2023-10-04T08:18:19Z

The second comment's name suggests that it might have some intersection with #113671, but apparently it does not.

petrochenkov · 2025-07-25T11:50:16Z

On another hand, this is exactly the same trade-off as in "Make metadata a workproduct and reuse it", and the same motivation

This is the case if the crate is unchanged, or if all the changes are in upstream crates and have no effect on it. This latter case is most interesting, as it arises regularly for users with several crates in their workspace.

applies.

cjgillot · 2025-07-25T21:56:11Z

I could experiment with splitting that query per module in a follow-up PR. This could make incr-patched case a bit better, at the expense of more dep-graph traffic, so regressing incr-full and incr-unchanged.

cjgillot · 2025-07-26T22:02:55Z

Splitting the lint per module, the perf results are here: #144479 (comment). From a cursory glance, they are close and show pretty much the same tradeoff.

petrochenkov · 2025-07-27T08:42:44Z

Splitting the lint per module, the perf results are here: #144479 (comment). From a cursory glance, they are close and show pretty much the same tradeoff.

The results for incr-patched in #144479 are quite different, there's less invalidation and the results are mostly green.
Otherwise the overhead is slightly higher though.

petrochenkov · 2025-07-27T08:45:47Z

Hmm, PrivateItemsInPublicInterfacesChecker is actually immutable and doesn't accumulate any state.

That means check_item itself can be querified.
And this whole loop

    for id in crate_items.free_items() {
        checker.check_item(id);
    }

can be potentially turned into a parallel loop.

What do you think?

cjgillot · 2025-07-29T15:58:07Z

Extra perf in the other pr. If you're OK with the direction, I suggest we merge this PR and then merge the other to see the isolated effect.

petrochenkov · 2025-07-30T12:20:34Z

@bors r+

bors · 2025-07-30T12:20:38Z

📌 Commit a2320b2 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-07-30T21:29:50Z

⌛ Testing commit a2320b2 with merge 606dcc0...

bors · 2025-07-31T00:31:46Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 606dcc0 to master...

github-actions · 2025-07-31T00:34:56Z

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 3048886 (parent) -> 606dcc0 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 45 test diffs

45 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 606dcc0d2e54d260f67d8a91f8adaf797a4ed38a --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

dist-aarch64-apple: 5252.5s -> 8003.0s (52.4%)
x86_64-apple-1: 6332.2s -> 8622.0s (36.2%)
x86_64-apple-2: 4095.6s -> 5311.5s (29.7%)
dist-apple-various: 5305.7s -> 3892.0s (-26.6%)
aarch64-apple: 5586.3s -> 6707.3s (20.1%)
x86_64-gnu-debug: 5566.8s -> 6429.3s (15.5%)
pr-check-1: 1502.9s -> 1722.4s (14.6%)
aarch64-msvc-2: 4706.1s -> 5370.7s (14.1%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2611.4s -> 2871.5s (10.0%)
i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7270.1s -> 7992.8s (9.9%)

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 · 2025-07-31T01:42:08Z

Finished benchmarking commit (606dcc0): 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)	0.5%	[0.1%, 2.1%]	40
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	20
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-2.8%, -0.2%]	41
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-1.3%, -0.2%]	26
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-2.8%, 2.1%]	81

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -4.2%, secondary 2.2%)

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-4.2%, -4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-4.2%, -4.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.9%, secondary -3.9%)

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)	-2.9%	[-3.5%, -2.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-5.1%, -2.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.5%, -2.2%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 470.294s -> 468.729s (-0.33%)
Artifact size: 376.85 MiB -> 376.81 MiB (-0.01%)

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public. This PR attempts to avoid re-computing `check_private_in_public` query. First by marking the query as non-`eval_always`, and by reducing the amount of accesses to HIR as much as possible. Latest perf rust-lang/rust#116316 (comment) shows that we manage it. The cost is extra dep-graph bookkeeping.

petrochenkov · 2025-07-31T12:05:30Z

The incr-patched regressions are eliminated in #144479.

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public. This PR attempts to avoid re-computing `check_private_in_public` query. First by marking the query as non-`eval_always`, and by reducing the amount of accesses to HIR as much as possible. Latest perf rust-lang/rust#116316 (comment) shows that we manage it. The cost is extra dep-graph bookkeeping.

Perform check_private_in_public by module. Based on #116316

rustbot assigned WaffleLapkin Oct 1, 2023

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 Oct 1, 2023

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 Oct 1, 2023

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2023

Auto merge of rust-lang#116316 - cjgillot:incr-privacy, r=<try>

812ab76

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

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 Oct 2, 2023

cjgillot force-pushed the incr-privacy branch from 9a97744 to 1da8198 Compare October 3, 2023 18:11

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 Oct 3, 2023

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2023

Auto merge of rust-lang#116316 - cjgillot:incr-privacy, r=<try>

cba27a0

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 3, 2023

petrochenkov self-assigned this Oct 4, 2023

petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 4, 2023

alex-semenyuk removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Oct 2, 2024

cjgillot mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2025

Perform check_private_in_public by module. #144479

Merged

cjgillot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 26, 2025

petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 27, 2025

cjgillot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 29, 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 Jul 30, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 31, 2025

bors merged commit 606dcc0 into rust-lang:master Jul 31, 2025
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.90.0 milestone Jul 31, 2025

cjgillot deleted the incr-privacy branch July 31, 2025 01:37

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2025

Auto merge of #144479 - cjgillot:incr-privacy-mod, r=petrochenkov

c23f07d

Perform check_private_in_public by module. Based on #116316

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public. #116316

Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public. #116316

Conversation

cjgillot commented Oct 1, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 1, 2023

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Oct 1, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 1, 2023

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 1, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 2, 2023

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

asquared31415 commented Oct 2, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Oct 3, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 3, 2023

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Oct 4, 2023

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Jul 25, 2025

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Jul 25, 2025

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Jul 26, 2025

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Jul 27, 2025

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Jul 27, 2025

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Jul 29, 2025

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Jul 31, 2025

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

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Oct 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

asquared31415 commented Oct 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading