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

Querify lookup_deprecation_entry. #131306

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

@cjgillot cjgillot commented Oct 5, 2024

r? @ghost

@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 Oct 5, 2024
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjgillot commented Oct 5, 2024

@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 Oct 5, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2024
Querify lookup_deprecation_entry.

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 5, 2024

⌛ Trying commit c75daeb with merge 59e3fbe...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 5, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 59e3fbe (59e3fbee5b4f1f5fc207aec623297a694fb238e3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (59e3fbe): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.4% [0.2%, 1.0%] 134
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.0% [0.2%, 3.5%] 47
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 1.0%] 134

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 6.9%)

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)
0.9% [0.4%, 1.8%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
7.9% [1.5%, 11.8%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.8% [-2.3%, -1.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.5% [-0.5%, -0.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [-2.3%, 1.8%] 9

Cycles

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary 3.6%)

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)
1.1% [0.9%, 1.3%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.6% [2.7%, 4.7%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [0.9%, 1.3%] 7

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.813s -> 774.378s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 329.46 MiB -> 329.45 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Oct 5, 2024
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjgillot commented Oct 5, 2024

@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 Oct 5, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2024
Querify lookup_deprecation_entry.

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 5, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 9293136 with merge 745ab5d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 6, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 745ab5d (745ab5d4eebd6efb079a2afb8eaabcb64bb2bf67)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (745ab5d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.8%] 55
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.4% [0.2%, 3.3%] 25
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-6.7% [-6.7%, -6.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.1%, 0.8%] 55

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 10.0%)

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)
0.8% [0.4%, 2.1%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
10.0% [6.5%, 11.5%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.4% [-1.4%, -1.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-1.4%, 2.1%] 6

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.1%)

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)
3.1% [2.0%, 4.3%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 774.047s -> 772.282s (-0.23%)
Artifact size: 329.49 MiB -> 329.49 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 6, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added B-experimental Blocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending, not yet approved or unneeded (requires FCP to stablize). S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. B-experimental Blocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending, not yet approved or unneeded (requires FCP to stablize). labels Feb 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. 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.

5 participants