Verify that query keys result in unique dep nodes

[Zoxc]

This implements checking that query keys result into unique dep nodes as mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112469.

We could do a perf check to see how expensive this is.

r? @michaelwoerister

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

:hourglass: Trying commit eae7593bfac74d9e2ea1b4ff92db0f2109e262ca with merge d8a5ccf04db2dbce42c32925c5651bd56b6852b1...

[bors]

:sunny: Try build successful - checks-actions Build commit: d8a5ccf04db2dbce42c32925c5651bd56b6852b1 (d8a5ccf04db2dbce42c32925c5651bd56b6852b1)

[rust-timer]

Queued d8a5ccf04db2dbce42c32925c5651bd56b6852b1 with parent 9d272a1b0501f96da0ed10caa1b2eb6dbb653686, future comparison URL. There is currently 1 preceding artifact in the queue. It will probably take at least ~1.6 hours until the benchmark run finishes.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d8a5ccf04db2dbce42c32925c5651bd56b6852b1): 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)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.6%]	200
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[0.2%, 7.9%]	146
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.6%]	200

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)	3.6%	[0.9%, 7.5%]	32
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[2.2%, 9.2%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[0.9%, 7.5%]	32

Cycles

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)	2.4%	[0.9%, 7.4%]	86
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[1.1%, 7.6%]	55
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[0.9%, 7.4%]	86

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 649.534s -> 651.184s (0.25%) Artifact size: 172.59 MiB -> 173.04 MiB (0.26%)

[Zoxc]

I've made -Z incremental_verify_ich or cfg!(debug_assertions) enable these checks.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

:hourglass: Trying commit 80992069e212e12a18910bef7ab43213e87135c9 with merge 8455f36495442921566585d0db4fd9d0b344e255...

[bors]

:sunny: Try build successful - checks-actions Build commit: 8455f36495442921566585d0db4fd9d0b344e255 (8455f36495442921566585d0db4fd9d0b344e255)

[rust-timer]

Queued 8455f36495442921566585d0db4fd9d0b344e255 with parent 094a6204f590e6b4770b5f26359dd17a07897adf, future comparison URL. There is currently 1 preceding artifact in the queue. It will probably take at least ~1.9 hours until the benchmark run finishes.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8455f36495442921566585d0db4fd9d0b344e255): 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)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.8%]	193
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[0.4%, 7.8%]	129
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.8%]	193

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)	3.6%	[0.8%, 9.2%]	42
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[0.9%, 15.1%]	115
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[0.8%, 9.2%]	42

Cycles

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)	2.3%	[0.9%, 8.4%]	98
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[1.2%, 8.5%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[0.9%, 8.4%]	98

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 648.949s -> 648.36s (-0.09%) Artifact size: 310.01 MiB -> 310.47 MiB (0.15%)

[lqd]

(random passerby note about these last results, they show the worst case: for stability reasons the perf runs are done with incremental hash verification turned on all the time, instead of the default lower verification frequency)

[michaelwoerister]

(random passerby note about these last results, they show the worst case: for stability reasons the perf runs are done with incremental hash verification turned on all the time, instead of the default lower verification frequency)

Thanks for the hint, @lqd! That's really good to know.

[Zoxc]

One thing we could try to reduce the perf impact

Not sure if it's worth optimizing given that it's opt-in.

[michaelwoerister]

Yes, I agree. The overall perf impact is low enough not to make a real difference for compilers with debug assertions enabled and regular compilers won't be affected at all.

@bors r+

As per @lqd's comment, the performance cost will be visible to perf.rlo but that is an artificial side effect of perf.rlo enabling fingerprint verification. Regular users of the compiler won't be affected.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[bors]

:pushpin: Commit 55ba7a7c622fb1ac95ef05e4a652cedf923a8164 has been approved by michaelwoerister

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

:hourglass: Testing commit 55ba7a7c622fb1ac95ef05e4a652cedf923a8164 with merge d3555f3d8e555ce488bbf8eee5eccdb66a464e14...

[bors]

:sunny: Test successful - checks-actions Approved by: michaelwoerister Pushing d3555f3d8e555ce488bbf8eee5eccdb66a464e14 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d3555f3d8e555ce488bbf8eee5eccdb66a464e14): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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 cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.8%]	193
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[0.3%, 7.8%]	153
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.2%, 7.8%]	193

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)	3.3%	[0.9%, 7.2%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	7.1%	[2.4%, 11.7%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[0.9%, 7.2%]	30

Cycles

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)	2.3%	[0.7%, 7.9%]	117
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[1.4%, 8.1%]	60
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[0.7%, 7.9%]	117

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.298s -> 674.552s (0.19%) Artifact size: 310.29 MiB -> 310.77 MiB (0.15%)