Perform DestinationPropagation on places.

[cjgillot]

View all comments

r? @ghost for perf

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: beffb46 (beffb46b22c244142de90ea73fcb24c3ec3e03a6, parent: 2300c2aef7dbc2a7bbbeaa9894d07d459abd9bc6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (beffb46): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 5.5%]	166
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 3.7%]	158
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.0%, -0.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-3.3%, -0.1%]	26
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-2.0%, 5.5%]	178

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary -1.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.2%	[0.4%, 5.9%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-3.6%, -1.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-3.6%, 5.9%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 1.9%, secondary 2.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[1.9%, 3.8%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.4%, 4.2%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.6%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[-1.6%, 3.8%]	12

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.7%]	40
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.0%, 1.7%]	60
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.2%, -0.0%]	64
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-2.2%, -0.0%]	71
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-2.2%, 0.7%]	104

Bootstrap: 472.507s -> 472.183s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 388.12 MiB -> 387.74 MiB (-0.10%)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7abf5cf (7abf5cf2df580e4433bd0c247bcdf18e1dab779b, parent: e100792918c8bd9e0cb830f96fc9b171e8892fa1)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7abf5cf): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 4.9%]	165
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.0%, 3.7%]	153
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.1%, -0.1%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-3.4%, -0.1%]	30
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-2.1%, 4.9%]	179

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.7%, secondary 3.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[1.0%, 6.3%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-3.2%, -0.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.6%, -1.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-3.2%, -0.7%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 2.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[1.6%, 3.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.7%, 4.3%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[-2.3%, 3.8%]	4

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	36
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.7%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.2%, -0.0%]	69
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-2.3%, -0.0%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-2.2%, 0.8%]	105

Bootstrap: 473.51s -> 471.623s (-0.40%)
Artifact size: 388.11 MiB -> 387.82 MiB (-0.07%)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #147654) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #147687) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 250a042 (250a04254bb75505befca743f99d681abcd4765e, parent: a4069f5bd099e4cf94c2313a47d864f6479ee304)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (250a042): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.4%]	142
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.4%]	144
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.9%, -0.2%]	24
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-3.6%, -0.0%]	28
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-1.9%, 1.4%]	166

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[1.3%, 3.4%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[0.4%, 8.4%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-3.6%, -1.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-3.7%, -0.6%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-3.6%, 3.4%]	13

Cycles

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.5%, 3.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-4.9%, -2.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-4.4%, -0.6%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-4.9%, -2.0%]	6

Binary size

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -0.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 0.7%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.0%, 1.7%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-4.2%, -0.0%]	54
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-4.2%, -0.0%]	27
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-4.2%, 0.7%]	69

Bootstrap: 500.816s -> 494.953s (-1.17%)
Artifact size: 395.23 MiB -> 396.82 MiB (0.40%)

[cjgillot]

I don't know how to bless that test. Dev desktops report no failure, and the output is cropped, so I can't know which FileCheck directive to modify...

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

r? @Amanieu

Do you want to review this while working on #156046?

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-gcc-core-tests failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

For more information how to resolve CI failures of this job, visit this link.

[Amanieu]

The code itself seems fine, but the main issue is that benchmarks show this is a regression overall performance of generated code. If you look at the check build results, they all seem to show a slowdown.