reduce perf impact of scalar size checks - #161456
Conversation
|
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
try to reduce impact of scalar size checks
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (5e1a5a6): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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. @bors rollup=never rustc-perf Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 2.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.4%, secondary 6.9%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 457.604s -> 457.186s (-0.09%) |
|
Looks like the right direction, but not quite enough. So I guess it's code size here, where previously we just constructed a little struct and now we invoke the panic machinery. |
74c6e8a to
8fbb81d
Compare
|
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
try to reduce impact of scalar size checks
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (d8dc741): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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. @bors rollup=never rustc-perf Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 2.9%, secondary -1.3%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary -2.6%, secondary -1.9%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 470.067s -> 467.991s (-0.44%) |
8fbb81d to
ae77f4b
Compare
|
That's at least reasonably close to the red numbers in the original PR I think. |
|
r? @jackh726 rustbot has assigned @jackh726. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
|
@bors r+ rollup |
…ochenkov reduce perf impact of scalar size checks Attempting to undo the perf regression in rust-lang#161238.
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #150075 (Implement clamp_to) - #157145 (Codegen Overloaded LLVM intrinsics based on their name) - #161866 (delegation: add tests fixating behavior of delegating to default trait implementations) - #161456 (reduce perf impact of scalar size checks) - #161730 (Improve type mismatch annotation for lets with block-wrapped initializers) - #161828 (Never type after-stabilization cleanup) - #161860 (atomicptr.rs test: remove unused import)
|
@bors r- |
|
This pull request was unapproved. This PR was contained in a rollup (#161871), which was unapproved. |
ae77f4b to
d802d17
Compare
|
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. |
|
I doubt that this PR could do anything to affect the scalable vector tests. @bors try jobs=aarch64-gnu |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
reduce perf impact of scalar size checks try-job: aarch64-gnu
|
Yeah it was the other one. |
View all comments
Attempting to undo the perf regression in #161238.