Skip to content

trait_sel: deep reject match_normalize_trait_ref #140978

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 17, 2025
Merged

trait_sel: deep reject match_normalize_trait_ref #140978

merged 2 commits into from
May 17, 2025
+12 −2

Conversation

davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@davidtwco davidtwco commented May 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Spotted during an in-person review of #137944 at RustWeek: match_normalize_trait_ref could be using DeepRejectCtxt to exit early as an optimisation for projection candidates, like is done with param candidates.

r? @lcnr
cc @oli-obk

davidtwco added 2 commits May 13, 2025 07:33
@davidtwco
trait_sel: deep reject match_normalize_trait_ref
a5e1dba 
Spotted during an in-person review of unrelated changes,
`match_normalize_trait_ref` could be using `DeepRejectCtxt` to exit early
as an optimisation for prejection candidates, like is done in param
candidates.
@davidtwco
type_ir: add faster exit for types_may_unify
febb16a
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 13, 2025
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 13, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 13, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#140978 - davidtwco:deep-reject-in-match-norm-…
4ad50c5 
…trait-ref, r=<try>

trait_sel: deep reject `match_normalize_trait_ref`

Spotted during an in-person review of rust-lang#137944 at RustWeek: `match_normalize_trait_ref` could be using `DeepRejectCtxt` to exit early as an optimisation for prejection candidates, like is done in param candidates.

r? `@lcnr`
cc `@oli-obk`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 13, 2025

⌛ Trying commit a5e1dba with merge 4ad50c5...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 14, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4ad50c5 (4ad50c518c44dd383a50145d109acb14c0967642)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (4ad50c5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)		 1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -7.2% [-9.3%, -1.2%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.5%)

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)		 2.5% [1.5%, 3.5%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.5% [1.5%, 3.5%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -7.9%)

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)		 2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -8.7% [-15.1%, -3.0%] 14
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.561s -> 775.379s (0.24%)
Artifact size: 365.44 MiB -> 365.31 MiB (-0.04%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels May 14, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented May 14, 2025

Nalgebra and ucd are flaky on other PRs, too

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=lcnr

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 14, 2025

📌 Commit a5e1dba has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 14, 2025
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r-

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels May 14, 2025
@davidtwco davidtwco added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels May 14, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 14, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 14, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 14, 2025

⌛ Trying commit febb16a with merge 815889a...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 14, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#140978 - davidtwco:deep-reject-in-match-norm-…
815889a 
…trait-ref, r=<try>

trait_sel: deep reject `match_normalize_trait_ref`

Spotted during an in-person review of rust-lang#137944 at RustWeek: `match_normalize_trait_ref` could be using `DeepRejectCtxt` to exit early as an optimisation for projection candidates, like is done with param candidates.

r? `@lcnr`
cc `@oli-obk`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 815889a (815889aef5075923094c857f74a84ebe5a13e31c)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (815889a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)		 1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -7.2% [-9.3%, -1.3%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary -2.1%)

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% [1.7%, 3.0%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.4% [1.7%, 3.0%] 2

Cycles

Results (primary -0.8%, secondary -8.0%)

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)		 -0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -8.0% [-11.3%, -2.6%] 13
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.561s -> 773.921s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 365.44 MiB -> 365.33 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 15, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented May 15, 2025

@bors r=lcnr

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

📌 Commit febb16a has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 15, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 16, 2025

⌛ Testing commit febb16a with merge c8bda74...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 17, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing c8bda74 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 17, 2025
@bors bors merged commit c8bda74 into rust-lang:master May 17, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone May 17, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 16d2276 (parent) -> c8bda74 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 8 test diffs

8 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard c8bda740ea5c21af42fe4afa907f89805ab2b905 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. dist-various-2: 3973.2s -> 3313.6s (-16.6%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-aux: 7000.5s -> 5921.0s (-15.4%)
  3. dist-armhf-linux: 5932.7s -> 5100.9s (-14.0%)
  4. x86_64-apple-2: 5490.2s -> 4726.0s (-13.9%)
  5. i686-msvc-2: 7580.8s -> 7057.8s (-6.9%)
  6. dist-arm-linux: 5096.6s -> 4750.3s (-6.8%)
  7. x86_64-msvc-2: 7085.0s -> 6650.5s (-6.1%)
  8. dist-aarch64-msvc: 8793.7s -> 8294.3s (-5.7%)
  9. dist-powerpc-linux: 5318.7s -> 5562.6s (4.6%)
  10. dist-x86_64-msvc: 5993.3s -> 6262.4s (4.5%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@bors bors mentioned this pull request May 17, 2025
Open
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c8bda74): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -5.7% [-9.3%, -0.1%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.6%)

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
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.6% [-0.9%, -0.4%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.1%)

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)		 0.5% [0.5%, 0.6%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.5% [-7.8%, -0.6%] 10
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.659s -> 772.939s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 365.39 MiB -> 365.42 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label May 17, 2025
@davidtwco davidtwco deleted the deep-reject-in-match-norm-trait-ref branch May 17, 2025 06:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lcnr lcnr lcnr left review comments

Assignees

@lcnr lcnr

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.89.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@davidtwco @rust-timer @bors @oli-obk @lcnr @rustbot