Skip to content
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.

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

EXPERIMENT: Avoid some extra bounds checks in read_{u8,u16} #110066

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm commented Apr 7, 2023

Just the first commit from #109910, to see perf.

r? @ghost

@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 Apr 7, 2023
@scottmcm scottmcm force-pushed the memdecoder-tweak-simpler branch from dcd4dfc to c434acd Compare April 7, 2023 22:45
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented Apr 7, 2023

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 7, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 7, 2023

⌛ Trying commit c434acd with merge cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 8, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20 (cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20)

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 8, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20 (cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (cf26a991a2aacb7ce8e6daa3c5adf34aa97cda20): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.5% [0.4%, 1.3%] 53
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.4%, 1.6%] 44
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [0.4%, 1.3%] 53

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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% [1.0%, 1.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.5% [3.3%, 3.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.0% [1.0%, 1.0%] 1

Cycles

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

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 8, 2023
@scottmcm scottmcm closed this Apr 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. 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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants