Add #[inline] to Vec's Deref/DerefMut

[nbdd0121]

This should help #97552 (although I haven't verified).

[rust-highfive]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with r? rust-lang/libs-api @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to request review from a libs-api team reviewer. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[rust-highfive]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0a7a0ff with merge b20edec6d352b36b8e7bad706d8d60a33ba471a1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b20edec6d352b36b8e7bad706d8d60a33ba471a1 (b20edec6d352b36b8e7bad706d8d60a33ba471a1)

[rust-timer]

Queued b20edec6d352b36b8e7bad706d8d60a33ba471a1 with parent 946a88a, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b20edec6d352b36b8e7bad706d8d60a33ba471a1): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	0.5%	0.9%	8
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	0.3%	0.5%	18
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.1%	-1.7%	12
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-0.7%	-1.0%	6
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.5%	-1.7%	20

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	5.8%	8.3%	2
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.2%	2.2%	1
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.8%	-2.4%	2
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-2.2%	-2.7%	3
All 😿🎉 (primary)	2.0%	8.3%	4

Cycles

Results

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	3.7%	3.7%	1
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.6%	2.6%	1
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.9%	-1.9%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	0.9%	3.7%	2

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[the8472]

The linked_artifact numbers decrease for some full benchmarks (e.g. ripgrep and cargo). So even though more stuff gets inlined it produces less code, that's probably a good sign.

[klensy]

The linked_artifact numbers decrease for some full benchmarks (e.g. ripgrep and cargo). So even though more stuff gets inlined it produces less code, that's probably a good sign.

You can check few other perf runs and see, that changes in linked_artifact metric isn't rare (for example, there exist change even in #97489, which is pure rustdoc: https://perf.rust-lang.org/detailed-query.html?commit=855fc022fe879f4e3493a024f9c6b981d6317612&base_commit=6999ef25645dcfcfd4e7092e448385ab3b73e44c&benchmark=ripgrep-13.0.0-opt&scenario=full. Btw, why there any changes at all?)

[the8472]

Well, they're 10x larger, but you're right, without knowing the variance it might still be noise.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I've personally seen this many times in local profiling, so I think it's worth doing this. Hopefully opaque pointers indeed fix this case though in the future.

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 0a7a0ff has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a7a0ff with merge 395a09c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 395a09c to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (395a09c): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	0.5%	0.8%	6
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	0.4%	0.7%	31
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.2%	-1.7%	10
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-1.1%	-1.9%	10
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.5%	-1.7%	16

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	2.4%	2.4%	1
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.4%	-1.4%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-4.1%	-4.1%	1
All 😿🎉 (primary)	0.5%	2.4%	2

Cycles

Results

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	3.1%	3.1%	1
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.4%	2.5%	3
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-2.3%	-3.4%	4
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-1.2%	-3.4%	5

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rylev]

As with any chance to inlining, performance is expected to change and to not always have a positive impact. That being said, the improvements outweigh the regressions (especially in primary benchmarks), and so it doesn't seem worth it to dig too much more into this.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged