Cargo does not rebuild if project got changed in the same second

[RalfJung]

To reproduce, take a small crate (I am using https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustc-perf/tree/master/collector/benchmarks/coercions), and run

cargo +nightly build # fill incremental cache
for i in $(seq 1 10); do touch src/main.rs && cargo +nightly build; done

These should give fairly consistent timings. However, they do not:

   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.72s
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.00s                                                                                                                                                      
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.70s
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.71s
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.00s                                                                                                                                                      
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.70s
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.69s
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.00s                                                                                                                                                      
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.70s
   Compiling issue-32278-big-array-of-strings v0.1.0 (file:///home/r/src/rust/rustc-perf/collector/benchmarks/coercions)                                                                                           
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.70s

As you can see, it does not even recompile the project each time! Seems like it is (a) using a one-second granularity, and (b) if the last change and the last build happened in the same second, it assumes the build was first! The latter is a wrong assumption, leading to this bug.

[dwijnand]

Related: #2426 "cargo build does not rebuild if a source file was modified during a build"

Personally I think cargo should only rebuild a project if the contents change, not if the timestamp changes, so I feel compelled to say I disagree that it's a bug that it doesn't "even" recompile the project each time. 😀

But more to your point, perhaps cargo could trigger a rebuild if the current time and the last build time match.

[RalfJung]

That's what we have incremental compilation for. Please don't make it even harder to test that.^^ ;)

I proposed a fix for this at #5919

[dwijnand]

I think I see what you mean: cargo should be dumb and use file timestamps, and let the incremental compilation within rustc to shortcut when no recompilation is necessary? TIL!

[alexcrichton]

We've ended up deciding to revert the fix for this in #6484, so I'm gonna reopen this to track a fix again. From the discussion there here's some points:

• Primarily, we want to fix cargo build does not rebuild if a source file was modified during a build #2426, where if a file is modified while rustc is running we'll rebuild the project.
• This means that we track when rustc started, and when build scripts started, moving the mtime of the relevant files to before either was invoked. This moves the mtime closer to the input files' mtimes.
• This in turn means that the window for edits and then rebuilding is narrowing, meaning that if we keep this fix in spurious rebuilds start to happen more often because the filesystem timestamps don't have the right resolution.

It was decided to back the fix for this out because this use case seemed a bit more niche than editing a file during a build (which typically takes much longer). A long-term fix for this will probably involve cryptographically hashing files. My thinking for this is:

• Whenever Cargo actually executes a build, it should cryptographically hash all known inputs once the rustc invocation (or build script invocation) finishes.
• When testing if something needs to be rebuilt, first a cheap mtime check is performed.
  • If the files were modified in the past relative to the last build, nothing to do.
  • If the files were modified in the future relative to the last build, a rebuild should happen
  • If the files were modified at the exact same moment in time as the last build, then all cryptographic hashes are checked. If anything changed we do a rebuild, otherwise we update the mtime of the last build to the current time (hopefully farther in the future to enable fast mtime checksd in the future)

There's been bugs in Cargo as well historically requesting cryptographic hashes always be used but we have been wary to do that for performance. This would naturally open up a possibility of having a config option to always use cryptographic checks and never use fast mtime checks.

[RalfJung]

I don't understand why spurious rebuilds are traded for spuriously failing to notice changes -- IOW, spuriously doing too much work is traded for spuriously doing the wrong thing. :(

You talk about touch src/lib.rs && cargo build (in a loop) being niche. That's as close to a standard benchmark setup (for incremental rebuilds) as I can imagine. In comparison, editing a file during the build seems extremely niche to me -- in fact it seems like a bug. It's all a matter of perspective, of course.

EDIT: Hm, okay, #2426 does list some realistic scenarios where this might occur. And it's a correctness issue there as well, not just missing an optimization. :/

Can you at least provide guidance about how to run benchmarks for rebuilds after a NOP edit, now that the obvious way got broken again? I mean, I can hope I never have to debug rustc incremental perf regressions again, but someobody will and then this landmine will be right there waiting for them.

it should cryptographically hash all known inputs once the rustc invocation (or build script invocation) finishes.

Won't that hash the wrong thing if the file changed during the rustc invocation?

[dwijnand]

Yeah you have to hash first.

But with a long build or tests I've often changed some sources mid build and then had to touch files to get the edited files to actually recompile.

No disrespect intended but benchmarking incremental builds seems like the niche case. One we'd want to find a way to support, but with some niche way to subvert the noop'ing (--rebuild or --assume-stale or something.)

[RalfJung]

But with a long build or tests I've often changed some sources mid build and then had to touch files to get the edited files to actually recompile.

Fair enough. I have a reflex pretty deep in my muscle memory where I don't hit Ctrl-S while a build is ongoing, I guess that's why I never saw that.^^

[epage]

#6529 would fix this.