Outline the panic path DenseBitSet::insert

[panstromek]

View all comments

This helped in bunch of other places, so let's try here, too.

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 17a762c (17a762c0f6abfa91fe0ae4724fb1578cf4f49ea4)
Base parent: 3009fdd (3009fdd3756436133ed9ea6b165a655c28f6857a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (17a762c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -6.6%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.6%	[-6.6%, -6.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -6.5%, secondary 2.3%)

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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-6.5%	[-6.5%, -6.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-6.5%	[-6.5%, -6.5%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 468.178s -> 486.402s (3.89%)
Artifact size: 400.13 MiB -> 400.27 MiB (0.04%)

[panstromek]

Let's try even simpler variant.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[panstromek]

Uh, I forgot to return !, that could make a difference. I'll try next round.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: f9cc26e (f9cc26eed3a08e2d1ae1b0c9f25f533d0d57a99b)
Base parent: 8536f4d (8536f4de90e5e781c06e584f8a88de860adc798b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f9cc26e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary 3.2%)

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)	3.2%	[2.3%, 4.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 468.334s -> 473.693s (1.14%)
Artifact size: 400.18 MiB -> 400.21 MiB (0.01%)

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 54c8034 (54c8034a29c1fc72e746689b83ca3c18a8e9ce9f)
Base parent: def3ee9 (def3ee9e4f0fe1429574f402bb624439bbd13fc6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (54c8034): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.8%	[0.6%, 1.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.7%	[3.7%, 3.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.7%	[3.7%, 3.7%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.6%)

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)	5.6%	[5.3%, 6.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-3.0%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)

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)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	80
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	61
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	80

Bootstrap: 468.743s -> 471.824s (0.66%)
Artifact size: 400.28 MiB -> 400.12 MiB (-0.04%)

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: aad0e2e (aad0e2e177ffd740e4e1991c4ff392737973502d)
Base parent: b0ca9c7 (b0ca9c712455d865c3bf0bf5325a3e79677a2d97)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (aad0e2e): 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.8%	[0.5%, 1.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -7.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.2%	[-7.2%, -7.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-7.2%	[-7.2%, -7.2%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 469.195s -> 469.168s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 400.17 MiB -> 400.14 MiB (-0.01%)

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7ce1d81 (7ce1d81e19b5c34222d084dcc818eaabfca41803)
Base parent: be0ea33 (be0ea33bba5000ac134e58acde780af83d908e44)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7ce1d81): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.8%	[0.6%, 1.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%, secondary 3.6%)

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)	5.8%	[2.2%, 8.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-6.6%, -1.3%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 470.262s -> 466.643s (-0.77%)
Artifact size: 401.08 MiB -> 400.30 MiB (-0.19%)

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: dfd3f3a (dfd3f3a7eac4f3bba80b8e623a73df1645d8d04c)
Base parent: 0a3fa2a (0a3fa2af35783dcd1b4206a85fe7811297eea0bf)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (dfd3f3a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.3%, -2.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.3%, -2.1%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

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)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	40
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	40

Bootstrap: 469.763s -> 470.342s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 400.31 MiB -> 401.03 MiB (0.18%)

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #161957) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.