[perf] test MCP510

[lqd]

r? @ghost

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

$  cargo +4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c build -q && readelf -p .comment ./target/debug/helloworld

String dump of section '.comment':
  [     0]  GCC: (Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1) 11.3.0
  [    2d]  Linker: LLD 16.0.5

Looks like yes?

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c): 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

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

• rustc

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)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-32.7%	[-74.0%, -3.7%]	74
All ❌✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31

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)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2

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)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-28.4%	[-64.8%, -3.3%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28

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)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20

Bootstrap: missing data

[lqd]

The data gathering is done so I'll close this for now, but may reopen to rerun crater on these new try artifacts.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4f95fda): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[0.2%, 10.0%]	282
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[0.4%, 10.9%]	255
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[0.2%, 10.0%]	282

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 7.6%, secondary 6.0%)

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)	7.6%	[1.5%, 23.5%]	266
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.9%	[1.4%, 29.7%]	184
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-10.1%, -2.0%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.6%	[1.5%, 23.5%]	266

Cycles

Results (primary 21.9%, secondary 16.3%)

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)	21.9%	[1.0%, 49.7%]	282
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[2.3%, 62.0%]	242
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	21.9%	[1.0%, 49.7%]	282

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	14

Bootstrap: 778.095s -> 731.978s (-5.93%)
Artifact size: 328.98 MiB -> 329.64 MiB (0.20%)

[lqd]

5th test: rustc-rayon with workstealing in the main loop only, -Zthreads=8 at stage 2.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (42d4c34): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[0.2%, 15.4%]	282
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[0.5%, 18.3%]	257
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[0.2%, 15.4%]	282

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 9.9%, secondary 7.4%)

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)	9.9%	[2.1%, 34.8%]	275
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	8.2%	[1.3%, 32.4%]	200
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-8.7%, -1.1%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	9.9%	[2.1%, 34.8%]	275

Cycles

Results (primary 37.0%, secondary 23.5%)

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)	37.0%	[1.7%, 113.8%]	284
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	23.5%	[1.0%, 108.2%]	251
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	37.0%	[1.7%, 113.8%]	284

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.0%, 0.1%]	15

Bootstrap: 777.403s -> 732.025s (-5.84%)
Artifact size: 329.02 MiB -> 329.38 MiB (0.11%)

[lqd]

last one, 6th test: regular rustc-rayon workstealing, -Zthreads=8 at stage 2.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 37ebd22 (37ebd228d6e8aedc86454af25755865c816918bb)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (37ebd22): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.2%	[0.3%, 14.8%]	287
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[0.4%, 19.0%]	256
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[0.3%, 14.8%]	287

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 9.3%, secondary 7.1%)

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)	9.3%	[1.7%, 31.0%]	273
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	8.0%	[1.9%, 29.9%]	197
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.8%	[-8.3%, -2.3%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	9.3%	[1.7%, 31.0%]	273

Cycles

Results (primary 40.2%, secondary 24.7%)

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)	40.2%	[1.6%, 166.1%]	283
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.7%	[0.8%, 116.3%]	246
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	40.2%	[1.6%, 166.1%]	283

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	12

Bootstrap: 779.143s -> 729.227s (-6.41%)
Artifact size: 329.04 MiB -> 329.61 MiB (0.17%)