Rub come caching on caller_location

[saethlin]

Inspired by the huge perf wins from making track_caller a no-op: #129704, I started poking around and it looks like we have no deduplication of identical panic::Location allocations.

Nora says I can use a query here, but I'm scared of query overhead so I'm going to perf something very crude first.

r? @ghost

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b691f26 with merge d81126f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d81126f (d81126f4eaa63a52d7b9fe2b15d2d0cf523fabfa)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d81126f): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 5.3%)

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)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1

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: missing data
Artifact size: 338.73 MiB -> 338.70 MiB (-0.01%)

[Kobzol]

Just noting that the benchmark results here are incomplete, because the master commit against which this try build was compared was not benchmarked properly.

[saethlin]

🤔 Thanks, I thought something looked odd. How did you know that? Did you just notice rustc-perf having trouble?

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d350a5e with merge e4077d6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e4077d6 (e4077d6388928dcd75ab940483822a33082b064a)

[Kobzol]

I noticed the bootstrap data missing. Then I clicked on "show all results" and there were less than 100 results, rather than 500+ as is usual.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e4077d6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -0.7%)

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)	1.2%	[0.4%, 2.1%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.5%, 1.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-3.9%, -0.4%]	43
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-3.5%, -0.4%]	78
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-3.9%, 2.1%]	58

Cycles

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	1.0%	[0.4%, 4.6%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.4%, 6.1%]	64
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.8%, -0.4%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-5.2%, -0.4%]	49
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-1.8%, 4.6%]	43

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 788.226s -> 789.955s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.73 MiB (-0.00%)