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

Encode trait impls using nested Tables #74807

Closed

Conversation

Aaron1011
Copy link
Member

We now decode trait impls DefIds only as needed.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @lcnr

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

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 27, 2020
We now decode trait impls DefIds only as needed.
@Aaron1011
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 27, 2020

⌛ Trying commit 119c788 with merge 15e932bee7e1345c8c86e007877d0dd0c5bc4a84...

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

This is relevant to perf regressions in #74682.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

It would be great if @eddyb could review this.

@Aaron1011
Copy link
Member Author

This is relevant to perf regressions in #74682.

Yeah, my hope is to at least partially mitigate the impact of adding additional crates to the sysroot.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 27, 2020

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions, checks-azure
Build commit: 15e932bee7e1345c8c86e007877d0dd0c5bc4a84 (15e932bee7e1345c8c86e007877d0dd0c5bc4a84)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued 15e932bee7e1345c8c86e007877d0dd0c5bc4a84 with parent fa36f96, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking try commit (15e932bee7e1345c8c86e007877d0dd0c5bc4a84): comparison url.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. Please note that if the perf results are neutral, you should likely undo the rollup=never given below by specifying rollup- to bors.

Importantly, though, if the results of this run are non-neutral do not roll this PR up -- it will mask other regressions or improvements in the roll up.

@bors rollup=never

@JohnCSimon JohnCSimon added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 11, 2020
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link

@Aaron1011 any updates on this?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

r? @eddyb
eddyb is also pinged in a zulip PM.

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned eddyb and unassigned lcnr Aug 15, 2020
@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Aug 15, 2020
@@ -286,6 +280,7 @@ define_tables! {
mir: Table<DefIndex, Lazy!(mir::Body<'tcx>)>,
promoted_mir: Table<DefIndex, Lazy!(IndexVec<mir::Promoted, mir::Body<'tcx>>)>,
unused_generic_params: Table<DefIndex, Lazy<FiniteBitSet<u64>>>,
trait_impls: Table<u32, Lazy!(Table<DefIndex, Lazy!([DefIndex])>)>,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't have sparse tables yet (I've been meaning to do that but haven't gotten around to it) so you should look at how much this change increases the size of libcore-*.rlib and libstd-*.rlib etc.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could maybe make this cheaper by removing the inner table and keeping a cache that's keyed on the u32 with a value of FxHashMap<DefIndex, Lazy<[DefIndex]>> for every crate.

Also, the u32, should that be CrateNum? That would be clearer and as a Table it shouldn't cause problems I don't think.


let len = self.map_or(0, |lazy| lazy.meta);
let len: u32 = len.try_into().unwrap();
impl<I: Idx, T: Encodable> FixedSizeEncoding for Option<Lazy<Table<I, Lazy<[T], usize>>, usize>> {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lazy<[T], usize> is unnecessary specific here.

@@ -93,24 +93,34 @@ impl<T: Encodable> FixedSizeEncoding for Option<Lazy<T>> {
}
}

impl<T: Encodable> FixedSizeEncoding for Option<Lazy<[T]>> {
fixed_size_encoding_byte_len_and_defaults!(u32::BYTE_LEN * 2);
macro_rules! meta_body {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

impl_fixed_size_encoding_for_usize_meta would be a better name, but also, have you tried this?

-impl<T: Encodable> FixedSizeEncoding for Option<Lazy<[T]>> {
+impl<T: ?Sized + Encodable + LazyMeta<Meta = usize>> FixedSizeEncoding for Option<Lazy<T>> {

Although perhaps that is still considered overlapping, I'm not sure of the coherence rules around this.

Copy link
Member

@eddyb eddyb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've left some comments but I don't think there's a point in doing this if it's not a measurable perf win.

Also I keep forgetting about this, but perf.r-l.o should show stdlib crate sizes (and/or the size of the lib.rmeta file inside an rlib), in case something makes them increase substantially. cc @Mark-Simulacrum

(Or maybe we can have some other way to get that information? It can be obtained for arbitrary builds by downloading the rust-std component)

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Aug 15, 2020

Oh, something else: as per #75008, it might make more sense to index the impls by the simplified type, not just the trait. Not sure what the best way to do that is, though.

@eddyb eddyb removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 16, 2020
@eddyb eddyb added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Aug 16, 2020
@Aaron1011
Copy link
Member Author

Closing this for now - I may revisit it if I come up with a way to make it a noticable perf win. However, it may be that this never really matters in practice (e.g. most crates don't have very many trait impls, or access to them is usually all-or-nothing).

@Aaron1011 Aaron1011 closed this Aug 17, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants