[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables #138995

oli-obk · 2025-03-26T18:23:03Z

Basically necessary for #138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise (1% primary, 2% secondary regressions) while the hir_crate query is still a thing.

My goal is to split the resolver tables into per-owner tables, so that all information that ast lowering needs from the resolver is separated by owners. This should allow us to fully split ast lowering to have one query invocation per owner that steal the individual resolver results for each owner.

Alternatively we keep the entire resolver state around until hir_crate_items has run and steal and drop it then.

oli-obk · 2025-03-26T18:23:14Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-03-26T18:24:25Z

⌛ Trying commit 33f5615 with merge 792af13...

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-26T20:30:56Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 792af13 (792af13061770b940e351039beebe10bd97d4627)

rust-timer · 2025-03-26T21:48:18Z

Finished benchmarking commit (792af13): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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-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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	69
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 0.5%)

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)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.0%, 2.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.4%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.5%)

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)	2.2%	[1.5%, 2.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.7%, -1.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.548s -> 776.554s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.81 MiB -> 365.80 MiB (-0.01%)

oli-obk · 2025-03-28T12:20:32Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-03-28T12:21:45Z

⌛ Trying commit a16a6f1 with merge 66f172c...

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-28T14:29:54Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 66f172c (66f172c845b537c43e7e41f92eaf99957253f6bd)

rust-timer · 2025-03-28T16:04:26Z

Finished benchmarking commit (66f172c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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-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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 2.1%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary 2.7%)

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)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[2.0%, 7.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.9%)

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)	2.9%	[2.0%, 3.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 778.99s -> 777.791s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 365.92 MiB -> 365.97 MiB (0.01%)

oli-obk · 2025-03-28T16:08:05Z

ok... better, but not great yet either

oli-obk · 2025-03-31T16:06:25Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-31T16:07:37Z

⌛ Trying commit a78e1a6 with merge 012f3ee...

bors · 2025-03-31T18:15:53Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 012f3ee (012f3eec5acc351e2cb934444de98793bf94c9e7)

bors · 2025-04-08T12:17:09Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e523e1f (e523e1f203ee5ea58ce6b05baf40c414467d6152)

rust-timer · 2025-04-08T14:36:57Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e523e1f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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-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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 1.9%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	27

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary 0.7%)

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)	1.1%	[0.7%, 1.6%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[1.0%, 3.5%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.6%, -2.1%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[0.7%, 1.6%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.2%)

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)	2.5%	[1.6%, 3.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.9%	[-8.3%, -7.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 778.421s -> 778.883s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 365.93 MiB -> 365.99 MiB (0.02%)

Avoid a reverse map that is only used in diagnostics paths r? `@ghost` iterating a map until a value matches and returning the key is bad obviously, but it happens very rarely and only on diagnostics paths. It would also be a lot cheaper with rust-lang#138995. Which is actually why I'm trying this out, that PR adds a new entry in `create_def`, which makes `create_def` show up in cachegrind. So I'm trying out if removing adding an entry in `create_def` is a perf improvement

oli-obk · 2025-04-11T08:48:57Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-04-11T08:50:09Z

⌛ Trying commit 009ef31 with merge e12315f...

bors · 2025-04-11T10:55:43Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e12315f (e12315ff9ca69d11e40517822568c2a9aafe11ec)

rust-timer · 2025-04-11T14:39:35Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e12315f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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-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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.2%, 1.9%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	10

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 1.0%)

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)	1.0%	[0.5%, 1.3%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[0.9%, 4.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-2.2%, -1.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-3.9%, -1.0%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-2.2%, 1.3%]	6

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.5%)

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)	2.5%	[1.8%, 3.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 781.035s -> 781.132s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 365.98 MiB -> 366.07 MiB (0.02%)

…etrochenkov Avoid a reverse map that is only used in diagnostics paths r? `@petrochenkov` iterating a map until a value matches and returning the key is bad obviously, but it happens very rarely and only on diagnostics paths. It would also be a lot cheaper with rust-lang#138995. Which is actually why I'm trying this out, that PR adds a new entry in `create_def`, which makes `create_def` show up in cachegrind. So I'm trying out if removing adding an entry in `create_def` is a perf improvement

Rollup merge of rust-lang#139584 - oli-obk:horrible-experiment-1, r=petrochenkov Avoid a reverse map that is only used in diagnostics paths r? `@petrochenkov` iterating a map until a value matches and returning the key is bad obviously, but it happens very rarely and only on diagnostics paths. It would also be a lot cheaper with rust-lang#138995. Which is actually why I'm trying this out, that PR adds a new entry in `create_def`, which makes `create_def` show up in cachegrind. So I'm trying out if removing adding an entry in `create_def` is a perf improvement

…id_to_def_id`

oli-obk · 2025-04-17T14:13:01Z

Ok, so the regressions are now limited to crates that have bazillions of owners

20k use items cause a 10% regression in ast lowering and a 6% regression in expansion/def-collection
3k extern items cause a 10% regression in expansion/def-collection
realistic examples like typenum show a 2% regression in expansion/def-collection

bors · 2025-04-22T05:38:07Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #139897) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

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 Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Mar 26, 2025

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 33f5615 to a16a6f1 Compare March 28, 2025 12:17

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 28, 2025

bors mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2025

Fix TAIT & ATPIT feature gating in the presence of anon consts #139063

Merged

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 28, 2025

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from a16a6f1 to a78e1a6 Compare March 31, 2025 16:06

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 8, 2025

oli-obk mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2025

Avoid a reverse map that is only used in diagnostics paths #139584

Merged

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch 2 times, most recently from b889cc9 to 009ef31 Compare April 11, 2025 08:38

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 11, 2025

oli-obk added 6 commits April 17, 2025 13:12

Remove an argument that was always the same

f76bb9d

Remove a needless mutability

29b8fd8

Split trait item resolving into its own method

01a35ec

Create only one ItemLowerer

d36c447

Replace extension trait with wrapper struct

8fcd278

Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables, starting with `node_…

ef6abe7

…id_to_def_id`

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 009ef31 to ef6abe7 Compare April 17, 2025 13:45

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables #138995

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables #138995

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 26, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 28, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 31, 2025

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

bors commented Apr 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 8, 2025

oli-obk commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 11, 2025

oli-obk commented Apr 17, 2025

bors commented Apr 22, 2025

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables #138995

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables #138995

Conversation

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 • edited Loading

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 26, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 28, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 31, 2025

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

bors commented Apr 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 8, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

oli-obk commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 11, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 11, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

oli-obk commented Apr 17, 2025

bors commented Apr 22, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading