Skip to content

Do not visit whole crate to compute lints_that_dont_need_to_run. #133781

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
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2025
Merged

Do not visit whole crate to compute lints_that_dont_need_to_run. #133781

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2025

Conversation

cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

@cjgillot cjgillot commented Dec 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

This allows to reuse the computed lint levels instead of re-visiting the whole crate.

@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 Dec 3, 2024
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjgillot commented Dec 3, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 3, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#133781 - cjgillot:shallow-allowed-lints, r=<try>
70d22e5 
Do not visit whole crate to compute `lints_that_dont_need_to_run`.

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 3, 2024

⌛ Trying commit be33355 with merge 70d22e5...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 3, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 70d22e5 (70d22e507ccc4fd2131df47d55028ed92973d588)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (70d22e5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.2% [0.1%, 0.3%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%, secondary 2.1%)

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% [0.4%, 6.2%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.5% [-4.1%, -1.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.9% [-3.9%, -3.9%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.5% [-4.1%, -1.0%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary 9.8%)

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)		 9.8% [9.8%, 9.8%] 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: 767.322s -> 766.364s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 332.21 MiB -> 332.20 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 3, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added 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. labels Mar 5, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot force-pushed the shallow-allowed-lints branch from be33355 to 4e79e39 Compare April 3, 2025 14:51
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjgillot commented Apr 3, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 3, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#133781 - cjgillot:shallow-allowed-lints, r=<try>
e86daa3 
Do not visit whole crate to compute `lints_that_dont_need_to_run`.

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 3, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 4e79e39 with merge e86daa3...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 3, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e86daa3 (e86daa32feec790f96418a412218c6f20da7f4f3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e86daa3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 5.0%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 5.0% [4.1%, 5.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -1.9%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.9% [-2.0%, -1.7%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 776.226s -> 776.188s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 365.90 MiB -> 365.86 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 3, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot force-pushed the shallow-allowed-lints branch from 4e79e39 to 280a1d8 Compare April 4, 2025 12:39
@cjgillot cjgillot marked this pull request as ready for review April 4, 2025 17:22
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjgillot commented Apr 4, 2025

r? compiler

@cjgillot cjgillot removed the S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. label Apr 4, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 4, 2025
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 7, 2025

📌 Commit 280a1d8 has been approved by petrochenkov

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 Apr 7, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 7, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 280a1d8 with merge c6c1796...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 8, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing c6c1796 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 8, 2025
@bors bors merged commit c6c1796 into rust-lang:master Apr 8, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.88.0 milestone Apr 8, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 8, 2025

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 e643f59 (parent) -> c6c1796 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Job duration changes

  1. dist-x86_64-apple: 7203.3s -> 9909.1s (37.6%)
  2. dist-apple-various: 7167.3s -> 8068.5s (12.6%)
  3. aarch64-apple: 3801.1s -> 4251.4s (11.8%)
  4. dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl: 5198.7s -> 5799.0s (11.5%)
  5. dist-aarch64-linux: 7852.7s -> 8408.4s (7.1%)
  6. dist-i686-mingw: 7990.9s -> 8383.6s (4.9%)
  7. dist-powerpc64le-linux: 9215.9s -> 9594.2s (4.1%)
  8. dist-x86_64-illumos: 5674.3s -> 5898.5s (4.0%)
  9. x86_64-msvc-ext1: 7173.2s -> 7401.9s (3.2%)
  10. dist-armhf-linux: 5044.0s -> 5196.2s (3.0%)
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
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c6c1796): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.1%, 0.6%] 25
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary -2.2%)

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)		 2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.7% [-4.0%, -1.2%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 7.6%)

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)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 7.6% [6.9%, 8.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 778.658s -> 778.421s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 366.00 MiB -> 365.93 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Apr 8, 2025
@rylev
Copy link
Member

rylev commented Apr 8, 2025

Seems like the perf regressions are a revert back to the mean after #139482 which looks like a fluke run.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Apr 8, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot deleted the shallow-allowed-lints branch April 11, 2025 00:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@petrochenkov petrochenkov

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. 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
1.88.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@cjgillot @rust-timer @bors @rust-log-analyzer @petrochenkov @rylev @rustbot @Dylan-DPC