Bump rustc-perf and update PGO crates

[compiler-errors]

Updates rustc-perf to rust-lang/rustc-perf@8158f78, and updates the crates.

r? @Kobzol

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• Some commits in this PR modify submodules.

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d6c4ab8 with merge 4c4ffc4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4c4ffc4 (4c4ffc4ef78313dc32c25e917372a415ab446035)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4c4ffc4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 1.7%]	70
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 2.2%]	89
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.9%, -0.1%]	84
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-14.4%, -0.1%]	65
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.9%, 1.7%]	154

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -1.0%)

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)	1.4%	[1.1%, 1.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[2.2%, 9.9%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-4.4%, -0.8%]	30
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-7.8%, -1.1%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-4.4%, 1.7%]	32

Cycles

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -8.5%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-8.5%	[-17.1%, -1.5%]	24
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.9%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 776.203s -> 774.104s (-0.27%)
Artifact size: 366.33 MiB -> 371.89 MiB (1.52%)

[compiler-errors]

new solver perf improvements even without the crates being included is really funny 😆

i'm not missing anything here, right?

[Kobzol]

Sorry, it's the same bug 🤦 Since some of the used benchmarks are prefixes of the new solver benchmarks, the new solver benchmarks are included even though we don't want them to be. I will fix it next week.

CC @nnethercote I think I will just change the behavior of --include to be exactly matching, I feel like we had enough trouble with the prefix/substring matching logic..

[lqd]

Can we --exclude-suffix new-solver maybe?

[Kobzol]

But we actually want to add a few -new-solver benchmarks in a follow-up 🫠