Store chunk_domain_size explicitly in Chunk.

[nnethercote]

View all comments

Currently we compute it on demand, but it's a little simpler and slightly faster to store it.

r? @ghost

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: f2dee36 (f2dee36bae6b48e996359e187e06284c26c6d3fb, parent: 28c4c7d7abced7b35c49f38149b9cb6ea27dd2a6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f2dee36): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.3%, -0.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.3%, -0.5%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.9%)

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)	3.9%	[3.9%, 3.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

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)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.3s -> 474.199s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 390.30 MiB -> 390.38 MiB (0.02%)

[cjgillot]

Haha I removed it 2 months ago... #145480

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3292998 (3292998ac4db5a85e367e401dd12f438b3ce18c3, parent: b41f22de2a13a0babd28771e96feef4c309f54aa)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3292998): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.1%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary 2.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 478.517s -> 480.21s (0.35%)
Artifact size: 395.02 MiB -> 396.97 MiB (0.49%)

[nnethercote]

@cjgillot: going back is a small perf win on cranelift, and the code is bit more concise too. What do you think?

[wesleywiser]

r? rust-lang/compiler

[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.

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: bd78cbb (bd78cbb7e34d44cad00846b8f105b56cc2de5222, parent: bcded331651b60a0383b3ff51db4f24c4495ac53)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bd78cbb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -5.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.1%	[-5.1%, -5.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 486.041s -> 487.115s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 395.29 MiB -> 395.25 MiB (-0.01%)

[nnethercote]

I rebased, and added a brief comment about the history. Perf is still improved on cranelift-codegen.

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 72b8bc7 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Duration: 3h 10m 1s
Pushing e5efd33 to main...

[github-actions]

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 c756124 (parent) -> e5efd33 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard e5efd33d2df6bd128be197468b3c6119bf58fe66 --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. dist-aarch64-apple: 2h 22m -> 1h 40m (-29.5%)
2. dist-loongarch64-musl: 1h 47m -> 1h 26m (-19.4%)
3. dist-x86_64-apple: 1h 53m -> 1h 37m (-14.5%)
4. aarch64-apple: 3h 4m -> 2h 45m (-10.4%)
5. dist-aarch64-msvc: 1h 41m -> 1h 52m (+10.2%)
6. x86_64-gnu-aux: 2h 27m -> 2h 12m (-9.9%)
7. dist-powerpc64le-linux-musl: 1h 43m -> 1h 33m (-9.9%)
8. x86_64-msvc-2: 2h 32m -> 2h 18m (-9.4%)
9. x86_64-gnu-tools: 58m 54s -> 1h 4m (+9.2%)
10. aarch64-gnu: 2h 5m -> 2h 14m (+7.1%)

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]

Finished benchmarking commit (e5efd33): comparison URL.

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

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

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.4%, secondary -0.2%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.4%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.5%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 494.654s -> 491.183s (-0.70%)
Artifact size: 395.38 MiB -> 395.44 MiB (0.01%)