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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[EXPERIMENT] Determine cause of perf regression in #108250 #108327

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

[EXPERIMENT] Determine cause of perf regression in #108250 #108327

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

I'm going to do some perf bisecting in this PR, to determine the perf regression cause in #108250.

r? @ghost

@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 Feb 21, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 21, 2023

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occured in rustc_ty_utils::consts.rs

cc @BoxyUwU

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

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

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rust-analyzer

cc @rust-lang/wg-rls-2

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 21, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 21, 2023

⌛ Trying commit fb1dc2405f433962f2aeef61bbd08a722774a0c1 with merge c9d96feaf00870ad52819d60355822c0ff62bded...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c9d96feaf00870ad52819d60355822c0ff62bded (c9d96feaf00870ad52819d60355822c0ff62bded)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c9d96feaf00870ad52819d60355822c0ff62bded): 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)		 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.5% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.3% [-0.5%, -0.3%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.5% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3

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)		 2.8% [2.0%, 3.5%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.2% [-3.5%, -2.9%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

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

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 22, 2023
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, just the first two commits is a very slight perf improvement.

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's try the first four commits:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 22, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2023

⌛ Trying commit edc2e24a11be94e37e97a0da33c55489b8d73a83 with merge 28e5f357a3e375600246931fcf14d79ee51d9453...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 28e5f357a3e375600246931fcf14d79ee51d9453 (28e5f357a3e375600246931fcf14d79ee51d9453)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (28e5f357a3e375600246931fcf14d79ee51d9453): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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-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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.6% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.4% [-0.4%, -0.3%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.6% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3

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)		 3.0% [2.5%, 3.4%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.3% [0.8%, 3.7%] 55
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -3.5% [-3.5%, -3.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.1% [-2.5%, -1.6%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.9% [-3.5%, 3.4%] 6

Cycles

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

@rustbot rustbot removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. perf-regression Performance regression. labels Feb 22, 2023
@nnethercote
Tweak the slice interners.
1cffe2a 
All the slice interners have a wrapper that handles the empty slice
case. We can instead handle this in the `slice_interners!` macro,
avoiding the need for most of the wrappers, and allowing the interner
functions to be renamed from `_intern_foos` to `intern_foos`.

The two exceptions:
- intern_predicates: I kept this wrapper because there's a FIXME
  comment about a possible future change.
- intern_poly_existential_predicates: I kept this wrapper because it
  asserts that the slice is empty and sorted.
@nnethercote
Rename many interner functions.
1ee8024 
(This is a large commit. The changes to
`compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context.rs` are the most important ones.)

The current naming scheme is a mess, with a mix of `_intern_`, `intern_`
and `mk_` prefixes, with little consistency. In particular, in many
cases it's easy to use an iterator interner when a (preferable) slice
interner is available.

The guiding principles of the new naming system:
- No `_intern_` prefixes.
- The `intern_` prefix is for internal operations.
- The `mk_` prefix is for external operations.
- For cases where there is a slice interner and an iterator interner,
  the former is `mk_foo` and the latter is `mk_foo_from_iter`.

Also, `slice_interners!` and `direct_interners!` can now be `pub` or
non-`pub`, which helps enforce the internal/external operations
division.

It's not perfect, but I think it's a clear improvement.

The following lists show everything that was renamed.

slice_interners
- const_list
  - mk_const_list -> mk_const_list_from_iter
  - intern_const_list -> mk_const_list
- substs
  - mk_substs -> mk_substs_from_iter
  - intern_substs -> mk_substs
  - check_substs -> check_and_mk_substs (this is a weird one)
- canonical_var_infos
  - intern_canonical_var_infos -> mk_canonical_var_infos
- poly_existential_predicates
  - mk_poly_existential_predicates -> mk_poly_existential_predicates_from_iter
  - intern_poly_existential_predicates -> mk_poly_existential_predicates
  - _intern_poly_existential_predicates -> intern_poly_existential_predicates
- predicates
  - mk_predicates -> mk_predicates_from_iter
  - intern_predicates -> mk_predicates
  - _intern_predicates -> intern_predicates
- projs
  - intern_projs -> mk_projs
- place_elems
  - mk_place_elems -> mk_place_elems_from_iter
  - intern_place_elems -> mk_place_elems
- bound_variable_kinds
  - mk_bound_variable_kinds -> mk_bound_variable_kinds_from_iter
  - intern_bound_variable_kinds -> mk_bound_variable_kinds

direct_interners
- region
  - intern_region (unchanged)
- const
  - mk_const_internal -> intern_const
- const_allocation
  - intern_const_alloc -> mk_const_alloc
- layout
  - intern_layout -> mk_layout
- adt_def
  - intern_adt_def -> mk_adt_def_from_data (unusual case, hard to avoid)
  - alloc_adt_def(!) -> mk_adt_def
- external_constraints
  - intern_external_constraints -> mk_external_constraints

Other
- type_list
  - mk_type_list -> mk_type_list_from_iter
  - intern_type_list -> mk_type_list
- tup
  - mk_tup -> mk_tup_from_iter
  - intern_tup -> mk_tup
@nnethercote
Replace a mk_ty call with mk_bound.
c09ebf9
@nnethercote
Rename mk_{ty,region} as mk_{ty,region}_from_kind.
f63847d 
To discourage accidental use -- there are more specific `mk_*` functions
for all `Ty` and `Region` kinds.
@nnethercote
Add mk_canonical_var_infos_from_iter.
254d119 
It's missing, and is useful in two places.
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's try the first five commits:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 22, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2023

⌛ Trying commit 254d119 with merge 77c0f5b2a21404c82267aea9407b493609f32ef0...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #108340) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 23, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 77c0f5b2a21404c82267aea9407b493609f32ef0 (77c0f5b2a21404c82267aea9407b493609f32ef0)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (77c0f5b2a21404c82267aea9407b493609f32ef0): 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)		 0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.0% [-1.1%, -0.9%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.4% [-2.5%, -0.3%] 11
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.0% [-1.1%, -0.9%] 2

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)		 6.0% [4.1%, 8.3%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.5% [-4.5%, -4.5%] 1
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)		 -5.4% [-6.4%, -4.2%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 23, 2023
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

The regressions weren't reproducible in this PR, and they've also disappeared in the original PR (#108250). Case closed.

@nnethercote nnethercote deleted the rename-interner-funcs-TRY branch February 23, 2023 07:28
@nnethercote nnethercote mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
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
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@nnethercote @rustbot @rust-timer @bors