Port rustc perf cmp command

[s7tya]

I've integrated bench_cmp and bench_local into the bootstrap.

r​? @Kobzol

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• These commits modify submodules.

[s7tya]

r? @Kobzol

[Kobzol]

Thank you, looks great! Left a few comments.

[s7tya]

Thanks! I've fixed them.
(I'm sorry for the mistaken ping. I thought I had specified the reviewer, but it didn't recognize it.)

[Kobzol]

Awesome, works great!

Idea for improving bench_cmp: if you don't specify IDs, it could show the two latest artifacts in the DB. If you specify only one, it should compare that ID with the latest (different) artifact in the DB.

[Kobzol]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit ce1d7d1 has been approved by Kobzol

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

Actually, this updates rustc-perf, so let's tone back the rolluping.

@bors rollup=never

[s7tya]

if you don't specify IDs, it could show the two latest artifacts in the DB. If you specify only one, it should compare that ID with the latest (different) artifact in the DB.

That's definitely useful! I'm going to impl it.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ce1d7d1 with merge e9e27ab...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Kobzol
Pushing e9e27ab to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e9e27ab): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -1.9%)

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)	2.3%	[2.1%, 2.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-8.4%, -1.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-8.4%, 2.5%]	5

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 751.195s -> 753.953s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 341.45 MiB -> 341.43 MiB (-0.01%)

[Kobzol]

This is most probably caused by small perturbances caused by the rustc-perf update.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged