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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Remove #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] from rustc_infer #103218

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 7, 2022
Merged

Remove #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] from rustc_infer #103218

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 7, 2022
+31 −26

Conversation

CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor

Related to #84447

This PR probably needs to be benchmarked to check for regressions.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Oct 18, 2022
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @jackh726 (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 18, 2022
@CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor Author

CastilloDel commented Oct 18, 2022 •
edited
Loading

@bors try

Edit: Knew it wouldn't work, but I had to try 😉

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 18, 2022

@CastilloDel: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 18, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 18, 2022

⌛ Trying commit 540d4bb99d79ad1587b7c021a3f99ef9178aa538 with merge 8b67abcd612ebae784d854d3a5c6ad4f428022b1...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 19, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 8b67abcd612ebae784d854d3a5c6ad4f428022b1 (8b67abcd612ebae784d854d3a5c6ad4f428022b1)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued 8b67abcd612ebae784d854d3a5c6ad4f428022b1 with parent a24a020, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (8b67abcd612ebae784d854d3a5c6ad4f428022b1): 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-review -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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.3%] 9
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 1.1% [0.6%, 1.6%] 8
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.5% [-0.7%, -0.5%] 6
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.1% [-0.7%, 0.3%] 15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.8% [2.2%, 3.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.2% [-3.2%, -3.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩2 ↩3

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Oct 19, 2022
@CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor Author

The result seems okayish to me. In instructions count, it seems the primary improvements overweight the primary regressions. The regressions in secondary benchmarks, specially the memory ones, don't seem to be that good, but I guess they are acceptable?

jackh726
jackh726 approved these changes Oct 24, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jackh726 jackh726 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just needs rebase

@CastilloDel CastilloDel mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2022
Merged
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 28, 2022

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

@CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, @/rust-lang/miri I messed up the rebase. It should be okay now!

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Oct 28, 2022

@bors r=jackh726

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

📌 Commit efb4a3ea7eb08f0dadb4dbe453350b784b7a9c56 has been approved by jackh726

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 Oct 28, 2022
@CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have changed shift_remove to remove following the conversation in #102674. It should be better for the performance and still work, because we only care about the reproducibility and not about having an certain order.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #103671) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Oct 28, 2022
@CastilloDel
Remove #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] from rustc_infer
e950201 
Change reported_violations to use IndexSet

It is being used to iterate and to insert, without a lot of lookups
so hopefully it won't be a perf hit

Change MiniGraph.nodes to use IndexSet

It is being used to iterate and to insert, without performing lookups
so hopefully it won't be a perf hit

Change RegionConstraintData.givens to a FxIndexSet

This might result in a perf hit. Remove was being used in `givens`,
and `FxIndexSet` doesn't allow calling remove without losing the
fixed iteration order. So it was necessary to change remove to
`shift_remove`, but this method is slower.

Change OpaqueTypesVisitor to use stable sets and maps

This could also be a perf hit.

Make TraitObject visitor use a stable set
@CastilloDel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not really sure about what happened, but it should be okay now

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

jackh726 commented Nov 7, 2022

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 7, 2022

📌 Commit e950201 has been approved by jackh726

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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 7, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 7, 2022

⌛ Testing commit e950201 with merge ca08a32...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 7, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing ca08a32 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 7, 2022
@bors bors merged commit ca08a32 into rust-lang:master Nov 7, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.67.0 milestone Nov 7, 2022
This was referenced Nov 7, 2022
Merged
Merged
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (ca08a32): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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% [0.3%, 0.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)		 1.2% [0.5%, 1.8%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.5% [-0.5%, -0.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.5% [-4.5%, -4.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.9% [-0.5%, 1.8%] 6

Cycles

Results

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Nov 7, 2022
Aaron1011 pushed a commit to Aaron1011/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2023
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#103218 - CastilloDel:infer, r=jackh726
e692954 
Remove #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] from rustc_infer

Related to rust-lang#84447

This PR probably needs to be benchmarked to check for regressions.
@CastilloDel CastilloDel deleted the infer branch January 28, 2023 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jackh726 jackh726 jackh726 approved these changes

Assignees

@jackh726 jackh726

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. 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
Milestone
1.67.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@CastilloDel @rust-highfive @bors @jackh726 @rust-timer @rustbot @oli-obk