Skip to content

Merge coroutine obligation checking into borrowck parallel loop #141773

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 2, 2025

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented May 30, 2025

r? @ghost

attempts at increasing parallelism in parallel rustc by merging parallel blocks that run in sequence

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 30, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented May 30, 2025

@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 May 30, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 30, 2025
Merge coroutine obligation checking into borrowck parallel loop

r? `@ghost`

attempts at increasing parallelism in parallel rustc by merging parallel blocks that run in sequence
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 30, 2025

⌛ Trying commit c56a309 with merge 2565031...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 30, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2565031 (2565031c8857024ac3447f529471a355df388c54)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (2565031): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.4%, 0.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary -0.5%)

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)
0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.4%, 0.5%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.8% [-1.4%, -0.4%] 12
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.2%)

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)
1.2% [0.6%, 1.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-1.3%, -0.4%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 370.19 MiB -> 370.20 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 31, 2025
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

Should be fine. large-workspace doesn't (afaict) exercise coroutines.

@bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 31, 2025

📌 Commit c56a309 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 31, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 2, 2025

⌛ Testing commit c56a309 with merge 91fad92...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 2, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 91fad92 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 2, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 91fad92 into rust-lang:master Jun 2, 2025
10 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone Jun 2, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2025

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 2fc3dee (parent) -> 91fad92 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 91fad92585b2dafc52a074e502b2a6c1f093ca35 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. x86_64-apple-1: 9026.9s -> 7207.9s (-20.2%)
  2. dist-x86_64-apple: 9928.6s -> 11819.4s (19.0%)
  3. x86_64-apple-2: 6503.0s -> 7074.7s (8.8%)
  4. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4076.3s -> 4413.6s (8.3%)
  5. dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 7181.0s -> 7741.1s (7.8%)
  6. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3: 7655.9s -> 7233.4s (-5.5%)
  7. i686-gnu-1: 9005.3s -> 8518.1s (-5.4%)
  8. dist-apple-various: 6971.0s -> 6596.2s (-5.4%)
  9. mingw-check: 1267.3s -> 1332.9s (5.2%)
  10. dist-aarch64-linux: 8019.2s -> 8419.8s (5.0%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (91fad92): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.5%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.4%)

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)
1.0% [0.4%, 2.8%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.0% [-2.6%, -0.5%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary -3.2%, secondary 0.5%)

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)
0.9% [0.4%, 2.9%] 11
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.2% [-3.2%, -3.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-0.7%, -0.5%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.2% [-3.2%, -3.2%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

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)
-1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1

Bootstrap: 775.84s -> 774.333s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 372.26 MiB -> 372.28 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 2, 2025
@panstromek
Copy link
Contributor

panstromek commented Jun 9, 2025

perf triage:

Looks like noise, the affected benchmarks keep following similar pattern (clap-derive is bimodal, the other two secondary benchmarks are noisy).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jun 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants