Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees #138157

scottmcm · 2025-03-07T10:46:25Z

This means that things like <usize as Step>::forward_unchecked and <PartialOrd for f32>::le will inline even if
we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them.

Fixes #138136

~~Draft as it's built atop #138135, which adds a mir-opt test that's a nice demonstration of this. To see just this change, look at 48f63e3~~ Rebased to be just the inlining change, as the other existing tests show it great.

rustbot · 2025-03-07T10:46:30Z

r? @Noratrieb

rustbot has assigned @Noratrieb.
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

scottmcm · 2025-03-07T18:48:14Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…<try> Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees This means that things like `<usize as Step>::forward_unchecked` and `<PartialOrd for f32>::le` will inline even if we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them. Fixes rust-lang#138136 Draft as it's built atop rust-lang#138135, which adds a mir-opt test that's a nice demonstration of this.

bors · 2025-03-07T18:49:26Z

⌛ Trying commit 48f63e3 with merge 10923a0...

scottmcm · 2025-03-07T19:25:02Z

tests/mir-opt/pre-codegen/range_iter.forward_loop.PreCodegen.after.panic-abort.mir

-    }
-
-    bb5: {
+        _8 = AddUnchecked(copy _7, const 1_u32);


Huzzah, a Range loop is finally optimized down to just the AddUnchecked(i, 1), no Step trait indirection.

cc @FractalFir who will probably appreciate this for other backends.

bors · 2025-03-07T20:48:10Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 10923a0 (10923a044371351c6571ba4981524da06812575c)

rust-timer · 2025-03-07T22:23:31Z

Finished benchmarking commit (10923a0): 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)	0.8%	[0.3%, 1.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.9%, 1.3%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	4.4%	[1.7%, 7.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.6%	[-6.9%, -4.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-6.9%, 7.2%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -1.2%)

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)	-1.2%	[-1.4%, -1.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.4%, -1.0%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 2.3%]	40
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	44
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.7%, -0.0%]	21
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-1.7%, 2.3%]	61

Bootstrap: 766.551s -> 766.742s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 362.09 MiB -> 362.03 MiB (-0.02%)

scottmcm · 2025-03-08T05:08:20Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-03-08T05:09:32Z

⌛ Trying commit e6789c8 with merge 3827dac...

…<try> Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees This means that things like `<usize as Step>::forward_unchecked` and `<PartialOrd for f32>::le` will inline even if we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them. Fixes rust-lang#138136 ~~Draft as it's built atop rust-lang#138135, which adds a mir-opt test that's a nice demonstration of this. To see just this change, look at <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138157/commits/48f63e3be552605c2933056b77bf23a326757f92>~~ Rebased to be just the inlining change, as the other existing tests show it great.

bors · 2025-03-08T07:08:42Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3827dac (3827dac7a7e728ea164b3c64e4dd1fb716c06a58)

rust-timer · 2025-03-08T09:05:09Z

Finished benchmarking commit (3827dac): 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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, 1.3%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%, secondary -3.0%)

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)	6.6%	[6.6%, 6.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-8.5%, -2.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-8.5%, 6.6%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 2.3%]	48
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	44
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.9%, 2.3%]	62

Bootstrap: 766.525s -> 765.262s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 362.15 MiB -> 362.08 MiB (-0.02%)

This means that things like `<usize as Step>::forward_unchecked` and `<PartialOrd for f32>::le` will inline even if we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them.

scottmcm · 2025-03-09T03:00:55Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…<try> Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees This means that things like `<usize as Step>::forward_unchecked` and `<PartialOrd for f32>::le` will inline even if we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them. Fixes rust-lang#138136 ~~Draft as it's built atop rust-lang#138135, which adds a mir-opt test that's a nice demonstration of this. To see just this change, look at <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138157/commits/48f63e3be552605c2933056b77bf23a326757f92>~~ Rebased to be just the inlining change, as the other existing tests show it great.

bors · 2025-03-09T03:02:07Z

⌛ Trying commit d30af47 with merge b2a2f87b43bf4e9696e100ff16d21845b3904b79...

bors · 2025-03-09T05:00:27Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b2a2f87 (b2a2f87b43bf4e9696e100ff16d21845b3904b79)

rust-timer · 2025-03-09T07:46:52Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b2a2f87): 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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.9%, 0.4%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	3.9%	[2.5%, 6.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-4.8%, -2.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-4.8%, 6.1%]	7

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 2.6%]	34
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	40
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.7%, -0.1%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.9%, 2.6%]	79

Bootstrap: 765.603s -> 766.315s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 361.95 MiB -> 361.97 MiB (0.01%)

rustbot · 2025-03-09T08:20:19Z

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

rustbot assigned Noratrieb Mar 7, 2025

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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 7, 2025

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 Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm force-pushed the inline-more-tiny-things branch from 48f63e3 to e6789c8 Compare March 8, 2025 05:03

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 Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 8, 2025

scottmcm force-pushed the inline-more-tiny-things branch from e6789c8 to 154f715 Compare March 9, 2025 01:24

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees

d30af47

This means that things like `<usize as Step>::forward_unchecked` and `<PartialOrd for f32>::le` will inline even if we've already done a bunch of inlining to find the calls to them.

scottmcm force-pushed the inline-more-tiny-things branch from 154f715 to d30af47 Compare March 9, 2025 03:00

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 Mar 9, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 9, 2025

scottmcm marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2025 08:20

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees #138157

Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees #138157

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rustbot commented Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm Mar 7, 2025

bors commented Mar 7, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm commented Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 8, 2025

bors commented Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

scottmcm commented Mar 9, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 9, 2025

rustbot commented Mar 9, 2025

Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees #138157

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Allow more top-down inlining for single-BB callees #138157

Conversation

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025 • edited Loading

rustbot commented Mar 7, 2025

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bors commented Mar 7, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 7, 2025

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

scottmcm commented Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 8, 2025

bors commented Mar 8, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 8, 2025

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

This comment has been minimized.

scottmcm commented Mar 9, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

bors commented Mar 9, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 9, 2025

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

rustbot commented Mar 9, 2025

scottmcm commented Mar 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading