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

[DONT MERGE] cargo perf regression investigation #124707

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

weihanglo
Copy link
Member

Deal with #124684 (comment)

This reverts the stabilization of -Zcheck-cfg.

r? weihanglo

This reverts the stabilization of `-Zcheck-cfg`
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 4, 2024

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

  • These commits modify submodules.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 4, 2024
@weihanglo
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 4, 2024

Some changes occurred in src/tools/cargo

cc @ehuss

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 05ce8ba with merge b9b6cc5...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
…try>

[DONT MERGE] cargo perf regression investigation

Deal with <rust-lang#124684 (comment)>

This reverts the stabilization of `-Zcheck-cfg`.

r? weihanglo
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b9b6cc5 (b9b6cc58230ca25ce9f73f4c63d5f6f237b0642c)

@weihanglo
Copy link
Member Author

@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 4, 2024
@weihanglo
Copy link
Member Author

@rust-timer build b9b6cc5

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b9b6cc5): 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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.4% [0.2%, 3.0%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.4% [-16.0%, -0.2%] 72
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.6% [-4.9%, -0.2%] 77
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.4% [-16.0%, -0.2%] 72

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.6% [-5.9%, -0.8%] 29
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-5.4% [-7.8%, -3.1%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.6% [-5.9%, -0.8%] 29

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)
-5.2% [-11.2%, -1.8%] 16
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.9% [-5.2%, -1.1%] 19
All ❌✅ (primary) -5.2% [-11.2%, -1.8%] 16

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 675.105s -> 676.509s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 315.89 MiB -> 315.93 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 May 4, 2024
@weihanglo
Copy link
Member Author

Looks like the stabilization of -Zcheck-cfg indeed caused the regression. Closing.

@weihanglo weihanglo closed this May 4, 2024
@weihanglo weihanglo deleted the cargo-perf-regression branch May 4, 2024 20:35
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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants