[perf test] #120268

[DianQK]

r? ghost

[DianQK]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

:hourglass: Trying commit 272dd0b3ce92a76de6de7ba127a24c345aca9b3e with merge 38b84c24f34fa6dbf2204891194f54f389e3b175...

[bors]

:sunny: Try build successful - checks-actions Build commit: 38b84c24f34fa6dbf2204891194f54f389e3b175 (38b84c24f34fa6dbf2204891194f54f389e3b175)

[rust-timer]

Queued 38b84c24f34fa6dbf2204891194f54f389e3b175 with parent a165f1f65015b1bd4afd2ec50700aaacf2e0c485, future comparison URL. There are currently 4 preceding artifacts in the queue. It will probably take at least ~5.6 hours until the benchmark run finishes.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (38b84c24f34fa6dbf2204891194f54f389e3b175): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	0.8%	[0.6%, 1.1%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.5%, 1.1%]	8

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)	5.3%	[3.8%, 6.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-8.1%	[-10.1%, -5.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-10.1%, 6.9%]	6

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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	41
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.0%, 1.6%]	33
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, -0.0%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.8%]	61

Bootstrap: 672.147s -> 673.649s (0.22%) Artifact size: 310.26 MiB -> 310.23 MiB (-0.01%)