-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Arena: use specialization to avoid copying data #78569
Conversation
r? @varkor (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
cc @est31 |
Apologies for taking so long; this slipped under my radar. I'm not familiar with this code, so I'm assigning to @Mark-Simulacrum based on |
599683e
to
43b83b3
Compare
@Mark-Simulacrum I've done what I could. I've addressed your comments and reverted some changes based on those comments. For example, changes to |
@bors try @rust-timer queue This should just be a win (or roughly neutral), but let's check. r=me otherwise. |
Awaiting bors try build completion |
⌛ Trying commit 43b83b334130ef066d8518ca2a125779399ccd73 with merge aa21b48c4d75183274998a446bae14e98053637a... |
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued aa21b48c4d75183274998a446bae14e98053637a with parent c9c57fa, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking try commit (aa21b48c4d75183274998a446bae14e98053637a): 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 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 |
Interesting. I wonder if I see the results correctly - an increase in instruction counts, but in the same time, looking at the detailed results, a decrease in times? For example, this report belongs to a 0.5% instruction count regression, but shows a -0.3% total time diff: https://perf.rust-lang.org/detailed-query.html?commit=aa21b48c4d75183274998a446bae14e98053637a&base_commit=c9c57fadc47c8ad986808fc0a47479f6d2043453&benchmark=match-stress-enum-check&run_name=incr-unchanged Hmm. |
I would say that this is perhaps a slight regression in instruction counts, but overall a win on cycles -- https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=c9c57fadc47c8ad986808fc0a47479f6d2043453&end=aa21b48c4d75183274998a446bae14e98053637a&stat=cycles%3Au on non-incremental benchmarks. I am inclined to land it based on these performance results; it does not seem like an obvious win yet, but it does seem like something we should be doing to try and avoid potential problems for the cases optimized here. |
Ok, r=me with commits squashed |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit e93a463 has been approved by |
Are the cycle numbers always this noisy? There is a 5% on incr-unchanged on the encoding-check benchmark. Apparently most of the slowdown comes from Should this worry us? |
Note that the 50% there is a wall clock measurement of 6ms, which is almost certainly noise. Cycle measurements frequently have noise in the 5% range on clean benchmarks; for incremental unchanged benchmarks they can be even noisier since there's less overall cycles on those. I am not particularly worried. |
@Mark-Simulacrum thanks for the info! |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Tested on commit rust-lang/rust@432d116. Direct link to PR: <rust-lang/rust#78569> 💔 rls on linux: test-pass → test-fail (cc @Xanewok).
mem::forget(self); | ||
slice::from_raw_parts_mut(start_ptr, len) | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like there are quite a bit of code duplication here, shouldn't it be refactored?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, it's not intentionally duplicated, but I couldn't find a way to make it significantly nicer. Unfortunately, we can't use alloc_from_slice
because it requires the items to be Copy
.
Cleanup for rust-lang#78569
It was added in rust-lang#78569. It's complicated and doesn't actually help performance.
It was added in rust-lang#78569. It's complicated and doesn't actually help performance. Also, add a comment explaining why the two `alloc_from_iter` functions are so different.
…llot Remove the `TypedArena::alloc_from_iter` specialization. It was added in rust-lang#78569. It's complicated and doesn't actually help performance. r? `@cjgillot`
In several cases, a
Vec
orSmallVec
is passed toArena::alloc_from_iter
directly. This PR makes sure those cases don't copy their data unnecessarily, by specializing thealloc_from_iter
implementation.