Skip to content

Conversation

cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

@cjgillot cjgillot commented Jun 17, 2025

Inlining MIR in a cyclic call graph may create query cycles, which are ICEs. The current implementation mir_callgraph_reachable(inlining_candidate, being_optimized) checks if calling inlining_candidate may cycle back to being_optimized that we are currently inlining into.

This PR replaces this device with query mir_callgraph_cyclic(being_optimized) which searches the call graph for all cycles going back to being_optimized, and returns the set of functions involved in those cycles.

This is a tradeoff:

  • in the current implementation, we perform more walks, but shallower;
  • in this new implementation, we perform fewer walks, but exhaust the graph.

I'd have liked to compute this using some kind of SCC, but generic parameters make resolution path-dependent, so usual graph algorithms do not apply.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jun 17, 2025
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 17, 2025

⌛ Trying commit cdc8ada with merge 3f9dff5

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2025
Only compute recursive callees once.

r? `@ghost`

<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.

This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using

    r? <reviewer name>
-->
<!-- homu-ignore:end -->
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 17, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 17, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3f9dff5 (3f9dff597570d85408b02e981414f2d9e3b31e2c, parent: 55d436467c351b56253deeba209ae2553d1c243f)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (3f9dff5): 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)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.7%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.4%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.4% [-2.5%, -0.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-2.5%, 0.7%] 5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary 2.9%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary 5.2%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
5.2% [3.2%, 6.5%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.2% [-1.2%, -1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [-1.2%, 2.7%] 2

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1

Bootstrap: 756.784s -> 694.525s (-8.23%)
Artifact size: 372.10 MiB -> 372.08 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jun 18, 2025
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 18, 2025

⌛ Trying commit ff30243 with merge 7ff0e48

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2025
Only compute recursive callees once.

r? `@ghost`

<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.

This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using

    r? <reviewer name>
-->
<!-- homu-ignore:end -->
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 18, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 18, 2025

💔 Test failed

@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 18, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 85f8013 with merge 4a6d273

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2025
Only compute recursive callees once.

r? `@ghost`

<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.

This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using

    r? <reviewer name>
-->
<!-- homu-ignore:end -->
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 18, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4a6d273 (4a6d273a303167376359d3352604c36356b5253f, parent: 6f935a044d1ddeb6160494a6320d008d7c311aef)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (4a6d273): 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)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.6%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.4%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.3% [-2.5%, -0.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-2.5%, 0.6%] 5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 2.8%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.3% [1.3%, 1.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.8% [1.3%, 4.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.3% [1.3%, 1.3%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary -1.7%, secondary -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)
-1.7% [-1.7%, -1.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.7% [-1.7%, -1.7%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1

Bootstrap: 693.627s -> 698.902s (0.76%)
Artifact size: 371.96 MiB -> 371.90 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 18, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 23, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d01b453 (d01b453f1a08967fc96d120e059c1a94c977941c, parent: 58d5e1169056f31553ecf680b009a5770eb0e859)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d01b453): 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)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.5%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.4%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.0% [-2.5%, -0.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-2.5%, 0.5%] 6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 2.6%)

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)
2.6% [2.3%, 2.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary 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)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.6% [-1.6%, -1.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.6% [-1.6%, -1.6%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1

Bootstrap: 688.673s -> 694.013s (0.78%)
Artifact size: 371.94 MiB -> 371.91 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 23, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot marked this pull request as ready for review June 23, 2025 14:14
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 23, 2025

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
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

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 23, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 23, 2025

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

@cjgillot cjgillot added the A-mir-opt Area: MIR optimizations label Jun 23, 2025
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

r? mir

@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @oli-obk as you wrote the original version

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned matthewjasper Jun 25, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jun 27, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 27, 2025

📌 Commit 2074013 has been approved by oli-obk

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 Jun 27, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 28, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 2074013 with merge 11ad40b...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 28, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 11ad40b to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 28, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 11ad40b into rust-lang:master Jun 28, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.90.0 milestone Jun 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

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 7ba34c7 (parent) -> 11ad40b (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 11ad40bb839ca16f74784b4ab72596ad85587298 --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-aarch64-linux: 7847.7s -> 5835.6s (-25.6%)
  2. aarch64-apple: 4345.2s -> 4982.9s (14.7%)
  3. dist-aarch64-apple: 5130.6s -> 5729.1s (11.7%)
  4. x86_64-apple-1: 7634.6s -> 8426.1s (10.4%)
  5. mingw-check-1: 1748.4s -> 1611.9s (-7.8%)
  6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4194.6s -> 3926.8s (-6.4%)
  7. dist-x86_64-netbsd: 4491.4s -> 4769.2s (6.2%)
  8. dist-apple-various: 6431.7s -> 6052.6s (-5.9%)
  9. aarch64-gnu: 6798.9s -> 6426.1s (-5.5%)
  10. dist-ohos-aarch64: 4435.4s -> 4192.9s (-5.5%)
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.

@cjgillot cjgillot deleted the inline-nocycle branch June 28, 2025 22:30
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (11ad40b): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.6%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.3% [-2.5%, -0.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-2.5%, 0.6%] 5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.5%)

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)
3.5% [3.5%, 3.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary 2.6%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.9% [0.9%, 0.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.6% [1.6%, 3.3%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.7% [-1.7%, -1.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.4% [-1.7%, 0.9%] 2

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 2

Bootstrap: 689.948s -> 694.764s (0.70%)
Artifact size: 371.76 MiB -> 371.73 MiB (-0.01%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-mir-opt Area: MIR optimizations merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. 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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants