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.

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

Test indexmap#343 - using hashbrown 0.15 with HashTable #131099

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cuviper
Copy link
Member

@cuviper cuviper commented Oct 1, 2024

In indexmap-rs/indexmap#343, I've ported to hashbrown 0.15, which also requires a change from RawTable (now private) to HashTable. This PR is patching to use that unpublished branch so I can test rustc performance.

r? ghost

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) labels Oct 1, 2024
@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Oct 1, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 1, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2024
Test indexmap#343 - using hashbrown 0.15 with HashTable

In indexmap-rs/indexmap#343, I've ported to hashbrown 0.15, which also requires a change from `RawTable` (now private) to `HashTable`. This PR is patching to use that unpublished branch so I can test rustc performance.

r? ghost
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 1, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 8ed63d7 with merge a560a4e...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 1, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a560a4e (a560a4ebb62f474a0cad75ba957486c494514e48)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a560a4e): 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
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.9%)

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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.2% [3.2%, 3.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.3% [-2.6%, -2.1%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 771.847s -> 770.491s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 341.40 MiB -> 341.34 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 1, 2024
@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Oct 1, 2024

Looks neutral with a dash of probably-noisy improvement. That's fine!

@cuviper cuviper closed this Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants