hygiene: Remove all caching in syntax context decoding

[petrochenkov]

#129827 unintentionally removed one caching layer in syntax context decoding (#129827 (comment)), and it was a perf regression.
However, it didn't remove all the infrastructure and locks supporting that caching layer.

Let's actually try to double down on that change, remove everything and see what happens.
If it doesn't work out, we'll try just try to re-land #129827 without the remapped_ctxts removal.

cc @bvanjoi

[rustbot]

r? @Nadrieril

rustbot has assigned @Nadrieril.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit fdc1439 with merge 98faffd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 98faffd (98faffde5c5a616450d14033ee9c504214e17761)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (98faffd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 3.4%]	68
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[0.2%, 5.7%]	37
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 3.4%]	68

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary 0.8%)

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)	4.4%	[3.7%, 5.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.6%, -0.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.0%, -2.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.6%, -0.9%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary 2.7%)

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)	2.7%	[1.5%, 3.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[1.5%, 3.9%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.4%)

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)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	121
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	37
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	121

Bootstrap: 774.756s -> 776.561s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 365.95 MiB -> 365.93 MiB (-0.01%)

[petrochenkov]

Conclusion: the caching provided by remapped_ctxts is really necessary, despite its overhead.