Outline deallocation from Rc::drop since decrementing refcount usually is warmer

[the8472]

Something similar was tried in #97676 but let's see if letting PGO figure things out instead of being aggressive with the inline annotations leads to better results.

[rustbot]

r? @joshtriplett

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

[the8472]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 51f5813 with merge 5b86aed...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5b86aed (5b86aedb517ab86f02d65fbb68c62ea51e5fad55)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5b86aed): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.3%, 4.7%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	4.5%	[4.5%, 4.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-10.3%	[-10.3%, -10.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-10.3%, 4.5%]	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)	3.4%	[2.0%, 5.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.1%, 4.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.0%, 0.0%]	9

Bootstrap: 630.425s -> 631.551s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 317.28 MiB -> 317.38 MiB (0.03%)

[the8472]

The top regression is in a benchmark that uses Rc, so that isn't too surprising.
But the wins I expected in obligation processing aren't showing; not worth it.