proc_macro/bridge: Add #[inline] to RunningSameThreadGuard methods

[mystor]

This is a potential fix to the perf regression from #101414.

r? @eddyb

[rustbot]

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 @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. 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

Some changes occurred in library/proc_macro/src/bridge

cc @rust-lang/wg-rls-2

[eddyb]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4913884 with merge e3cc1f3a7a5f000cd6334c8776177202a47c67f4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e3cc1f3a7a5f000cd6334c8776177202a47c67f4 (e3cc1f3a7a5f000cd6334c8776177202a47c67f4)

[rust-timer]

Queued e3cc1f3a7a5f000cd6334c8776177202a47c67f4 with parent 2dc703f, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e3cc1f3a7a5f000cd6334c8776177202a47c67f4): 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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 1.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.8%, 2.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.0%, -0.3%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.4%, -1.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, 1.0%]	10

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[Kobzol]

I think that both #101414 and this PR is mostly perf-neutral. All the affected benchmarks have recently become bimodal and are very noisy.

[dtolnay]

According to #101414 (comment), "the regressions flagged [in #101414] are almost certainly noise". I don't think we need to pursue this further.

Thanks anyway for the diligence in following up!