[perf] test MCP510 by lqd · Pull Request #113382 · rust-lang/rust

lqd · 2023-07-05T20:17:41Z

rust-timer · 2023-07-05T23:34:04Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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-perf -perf-regression

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

rustc

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-32.7%	[-74.0%, -3.7%]	74
All ❌✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31

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)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2

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)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-28.4%	[-64.8%, -3.3%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28

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)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20

Bootstrap: missing data

lqd · 2023-07-18T17:42:43Z

The data gathering is done so I'll close this for now, but may reopen to rerun crater on these new try artifacts.

rust-timer · 2025-12-09T17:55:55Z

Finished benchmarking commit (621e94b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[0.2%, 16.2%]	96
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.1%, 15.7%]	112
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[-0.6%, 16.2%]	103

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 11.0%, secondary 5.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	12.5%	[0.8%, 29.7%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	11.4%	[0.7%, 43.3%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-7.3%, -1.1%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	11.0%	[-2.1%, 29.7%]	10

Cycles

Results (primary 4.5%, secondary 4.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.9%	[2.1%, 9.2%]	18
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[1.9%, 7.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.5%	[-2.5%, 9.2%]	19

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 472.272s -> 473.236s (0.20%)
Artifact size: 389.04 MiB -> 386.94 MiB (-0.54%)

lqd · 2026-01-07T10:18:29Z

note to self about the experiment: "finalized lazy construction of the polonius localized constraints, -Zpolonius=next enabled so tests will fail"

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2026-01-07T13:23:35Z

Finished benchmarking commit (a1558d5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[0.1%, 14.9%]	97
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[0.1%, 14.5%]	117
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[-0.3%, 14.9%]	100

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.2%, secondary 2.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.6%	[2.0%, 7.5%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.1%	[0.9%, 12.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-4.9%, -3.7%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[-0.9%, 7.5%]	8

Cycles

Results (primary 4.4%, secondary 4.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.4%	[2.1%, 8.7%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.4%	[1.9%, 6.9%]	23
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.4%	[2.1%, 8.7%]	27

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.542s -> 476.053s (0.32%)
Artifact size: 390.84 MiB -> 390.59 MiB (-0.06%)

lqd · 2026-03-26T16:22:55Z

@bors try

rust-bors · 2026-03-26T18:31:03Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9845a79 (9845a79fc55305d3e87e75d1684a6f4a8c30b1c8, parent: f58bd5cee4ce4a97b03146fa94fc9ba68ddd5f64)

Local runs don't emit metrics, trying to update the metrics.json file will always fail.

right now, an opt-dist run starts with: - clear its opt-artifacts folder - copy a rustc-perf tree there - build the collector So, on every run, the built rustc-perf is deleted and rebuilt, even though there is a "prebuilt rustc-perf" configuration. This commit does not rebuild rustc-perf if there's a prebuilt dir, and returning that as the rustc-perf path to run benchmarks in.

Local runs are usually more concerned about optimizing the compiler, so optimizing rustdoc is off by default for these, but it still is on by default otherwise, to keep optimizing it on CI as we do today.

Make optimizing cranelift and clippy off by default for local runs.

The default is still on for CI, because we optimize by default, but off for local runs.

lqd · 2026-11-06T15:03:25Z

@bors try

lqd · 2026-11-06T15:09:44Z

@rust-timer queue

rust-bors · 2026-11-06T16:07:15Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: f9e01e5 (f9e01e5a15c2df4188514eb2aaf282c63925da79)
Base parent: 249c1e4 (249c1e4e31111b54ad2483cfd4cea06c7020c653)

rust-timer · 2026-11-06T16:56:42Z

Finished benchmarking commit (f9e01e5): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

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

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.3%	[2.6%, 4.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[2.6%, 4.0%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 481.055s -> 481.839s (0.16%)
Artifact size: 406.29 MiB -> 406.34 MiB (0.01%)

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 Jul 5, 2023

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 5, 2023

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 5, 2023

lqd closed this Jul 18, 2023

lqd reopened this Sep 12, 2023

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from 793c8e6 to a9e047f Compare September 12, 2023 15:38

rustbot added the T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) label Sep 12, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from a9e047f to 68e4f7d Compare September 12, 2023 17:25

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from 68e4f7d to fb7cde3 Compare September 20, 2023 17:39

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from fb7cde3 to 3adfc22 Compare September 20, 2023 17:47

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from 3adfc22 to df25e9c Compare September 20, 2023 18:04

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from df25e9c to 03e476e Compare September 20, 2023 19:19

lqd closed this Sep 20, 2023

lqd reopened this Sep 21, 2023

lqd force-pushed the test-mcp510 branch from 03e476e to 5e67656 Compare September 21, 2023 18:31

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rafaeelricco mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2026

Review PRs with a repo skill that proves findings before posting rafaeelricco/job-kit-ai#145

Merged

lqd added 8 commits November 6, 2026 11:29

metrics are actually optional

5f8034c

Local runs don't emit metrics, trying to update the metrics.json file will always fail.

make optimizing rustdoc optional

072a9b5

Local runs are usually more concerned about optimizing the compiler, so optimizing rustdoc is off by default for these, but it still is on by default otherwise, to keep optimizing it on CI as we do today.

make optimizing cranelift and clippy overridable on the CLI

d3d1c17

Make optimizing cranelift and clippy off by default for local runs.

make optimizing cargo optional

40aa780

The default is still on for CI, because we optimize by default, but off for local runs.

improve a few comments

4090405

fix comment

9973e31

make label for components that are actually optimized

5b405ab

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Conversation

lqd commented Jul 5, 2023 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as duplicate.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as outdated.

rust-timer commented Jul 5, 2023

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Uh oh!

lqd commented Jul 18, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as resolved.

rust-timer commented Dec 9, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

lqd commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Jan 7, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

lqd commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

lqd commented Nov 6, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

lqd commented Nov 6, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Nov 6, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Nov 6, 2026

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

lqd commented Jul 5, 2023 •

edited by rustbot

Loading