Dont rerun stalled goals if erased runs succeeded*

[jdonszelmann]

View all comments

* Unless the succesful erased run was conditional on the state of opaque type storage, and the opaque type storage changed in a significant way

r? @lcnr

[jdonszelmann]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d5c2f17 (d5c2f17a7a29a89c4511d0c6ab7f0491f9a500d5, parent: b5d46ecb51c3e4134b82570cfe718f093daa6390)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d5c2f17): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking 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.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-40.2%	[-68.8%, -10.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.0%, secondary -38.9%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-5.2%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-38.9%	[-55.0%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-5.2%, -0.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -34.3%)

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)	-34.3%	[-70.8%, -2.8%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 522.814s -> 518.78s (-0.77%)
Artifact size: 400.99 MiB -> 401.54 MiB (0.14%)

[jdonszelmann]

@rustbot review

[lcnr]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 43dadf1 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

⚠️ A new commit 18447381e667cf0eaa6bff749c219e4208f6b334 was pushed.

This pull request was unapproved.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r+ rollup=never
oops, the force push is empty, nothing changed

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 1844738 has been approved by jdonszelmann

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r-

[rust-bors]

This pull request was unapproved.

View changes since this unapproval

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r=lcnr rollup=never

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 1844738 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors try @rust-timer queue
(perf run to use as a base for #157970)

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1844738 with merge 3c7e14d…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

Workflow: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/27622701400

[jdonszelmann]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/27622701400

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: lcnr
Duration: 3h 34m 26s
Pushing 1c0f175 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 9e2abe0 (parent) -> 1c0f175 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 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 1c0f17520a62ebdb757b5015633e0fab2df553a4 --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-x86_64-musl: 1h 31m -> 2h 22m (+55.6%)
2. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 1h 15m -> 1h 35m (+26.4%)
3. dist-i686-linux: 1h 29m -> 1h 51m (+25.2%)
4. optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend: 2h 10m -> 2h 41m (+23.8%)
5. dist-x86_64-linux-alt: 2h 31m -> 2h 2m (-19.3%)
6. dist-x86_64-mingw: 2h 9m -> 2h 31m (+16.9%)
7. aarch64-apple: 3h 14m -> 2h 43m (-15.8%)
8. pr-check-2: 46m 40s -> 39m 18s (-15.8%)
9. x86_64-gnu-gcc-core-tests: 14m 41s -> 12m 26s (-15.2%)
10. x86_64-gnu-pre-stabilization: 38m 26s -> 33m 21s (-13.2%)

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 (1c0f175): 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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-40.8%	[-69.6%, -10.5%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -23.6%)

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-27.9%	[-55.5%, -2.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -33.8%)

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)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-40.0%	[-71.9%, -7.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 522.871s -> 523.093s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 401.31 MiB -> 401.36 MiB (0.01%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

Perf improvements seriously outweigh regressions.
If I understand the change correctly, this is caused by adding new fast paths to the trait solver, which usually seriously improve performance but might sometimes be missed and minorly regress performance.