Some tracing and comment cleanups

[oli-obk]

Pulled out of #101900 to see if that is the perf impact

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @eholk (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 44d1936 with merge 01daed9eef18afbab9598c2a7db5cd5904705c63...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 01daed9eef18afbab9598c2a7db5cd5904705c63 (01daed9eef18afbab9598c2a7db5cd5904705c63)

[rust-timer]

Queued 01daed9eef18afbab9598c2a7db5cd5904705c63 with parent 6330c27, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (01daed9eef18afbab9598c2a7db5cd5904705c63): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1

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)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.9%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-5.1%, -2.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.9%, 0.9%]	4

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	3

[oli-obk]

OK... that wasn't it apparently. Still an improvement in debuggability

[jackh726]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 44d1936 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 44d1936 with merge a4ab2e0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing a4ab2e0 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a4ab2e0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	1.0%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.3%, 4.2%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	3

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)	0.9%	[0.7%, 1.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.6%, 1.2%]	3

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)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.2%, 2.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.9%]	3

[jackh726]

Uh...

[lqd]

These results should mostly be unrelated.

The biggest numbers here, cranelift-codegen and keccak, are noise. Some of the other smaller regressions are likely noise as well, eg coercions, and wg-grammar is often noisy with them but with a slightly different pattern and has also improved since then.