Split the node_id_to_def_id table into a per-owner table by oli-obk · Pull Request #138995 · rust-lang/rust

oli-obk · 2025-03-26T18:23:03Z

My goal is to split all the resolver tables that get passed to act lowering 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.

part of rust-lang/rust-project-goals#620

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)

…id_to_def_id`

Now they unfortunately land in their parent, which is not necessary

petrochenkov · 2026-05-13T13:33:23Z

@bors r+

rust-bors · 2026-05-13T13:33:27Z

📌 Commit 3a2ae6a has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-05-13T14:19:11Z

@bors treeclosed=1
@bors p=1
I'm keeping the tree closed with a low priority so the rollupable jobs don't get kicked out of the queue due to github spuriousness, but we can run this rollup=never job if the rollup fails

rust-bors · 2026-05-13T14:19:15Z

Tree closed for PRs with priority less than 1.

rust-log-analyzer · 2026-05-13T18:56:07Z

The job armhf-gnu failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

failures:

---- [ui] tests/ui/codegen/equal-pointers-unequal/exposed-provenance/segfault.rs stdout ----

error: test did not exit with success! code=Some(101) so test would pass with `run-fail`
status: exit status: 101
command: RUSTC="/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" RUST_TEST_THREADS="4" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools-bin/remote-test-client" "run" "0" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/codegen/equal-pointers-unequal/exposed-provenance/segfault/a"
--- stdout -------------------------------
uploaded "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/codegen/equal-pointers-unequal/exposed-provenance/segfault/a", waiting for result
------------------------------------------

rust-bors · 2026-05-13T18:56:51Z

💔 Test for aae7f5b failed: CI. Failed job:

auto - armhf-gnu (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-05-13T19:02:02Z

@bors retry

rust-bors · 2026-05-13T22:23:00Z

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: petrochenkov
Duration: 3h 20m 2s
Pushing ff9a9ea to main...

github-actions · 2026-05-13T22:25:59Z

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 8008927 (parent) -> ff9a9ea (this PR)

Test differences

Show 56 test diffs

56 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 ff9a9ea07bdc74e9555126464b02be8ff277f521 --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

dist-x86_64-freebsd: 1h 51m -> 1h 14m (-33.5%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 52m 23s -> 35m 42s (-31.8%)
aarch64-gnu-debug: 1h 40m -> 1h 9m (-30.9%)
x86_64-gnu-debug: 2h 36m -> 1h 48m (-30.5%)
aarch64-apple: 3h 47m -> 2h 40m (-29.2%)
dist-various-1: 1h 15m -> 1h 37m (+28.7%)
dist-aarch64-apple: 2h 48m -> 2h 2m (-27.2%)
x86_64-gnu-aux: 1h 49m -> 2h 19m (+26.5%)
dist-apple-various: 2h 33m -> 1h 55m (-25.0%)
pr-check-1: 34m 21s -> 26m 38s (-22.5%)

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 · 2026-05-13T23:05:37Z

Finished benchmarking commit (ff9a9ea): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.3%]	10

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 1.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[0.8%, 2.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.8%, 2.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[0.8%, 2.1%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary 3.9%, secondary 3.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.9%	[2.1%, 7.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.7%, 4.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.9%	[2.1%, 7.7%]	4

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 507.838s -> 511.173s (0.66%)
Artifact size: 398.10 MiB -> 398.06 MiB (-0.01%)

jieyouxu · 2026-05-14T05:25:38Z

@bors treeclosed-

rust-bors · 2026-05-14T05:25:41Z

Tree is now open for merging.

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

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

adb2b0f

…id_to_def_id`

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 5a89507 to 19e09e9 Compare May 13, 2026 07:28

Stop putting owner's DefId into their own node_id_to_def_id map

3a2ae6a

Now they unfortunately land in their parent, which is not necessary

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 19e09e9 to 3a2ae6a Compare May 13, 2026 07:30

oli-obk added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels May 13, 2026

petrochenkov approved these changes May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

This was referenced May 13, 2026

Add ChildExt::kill_process_group #156539

Merged

Add lint againts invalid runtime symbol definitions #155521

Open

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

Privacy: move macros handling to early stage #156500

Merged

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

This was referenced May 13, 2026

Do not index past end of buffer when checking heuristic in error index syntax highlighter #156344

Merged

test: suppress deprecation warning #156260

Merged

rust-bors Bot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

Rollup of 6 pull requests #156555

Closed

rust-bors Bot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

Turn elided_lifetimes_in_associated_constant FCW into a hard error #156508

Draft

This was referenced May 14, 2026

compiletest: Enforce that directives are consistently used with or without a colon #156450

Merged

compiletest: Rename //@ ignore-pass to //@ no-pass-override #156531

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 26, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 28, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-log-analyzer commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented May 13, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 13, 2026

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented May 13, 2026

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

Uh oh!

jieyouxu commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading