Skip to content

Use more CGUs in incremental compilation #129222

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
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Use more CGUs in incremental compilation #129222

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@saethlin
Copy link
Member

@saethlin saethlin commented Aug 18, 2024

Just wondering how this looks in perf...

r? @ghost

@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 Aug 18, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Aug 18, 2024

@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 Aug 18, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 18, 2024

⌛ Trying commit cc1ef91 with merge ff1120a...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129222 - saethlin:more-incr-cgus, r=<try>
ff1120a 
Use more CGUs in incremental compilation

Just wondering how this looks in perf...

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 18, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ff1120a (ff1120a1998ba0a52b132276ebea9d2aaf16305c)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Aug 18, 2024

Finished benchmarking commit (ff1120a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.6% [0.2%, 2.0%] 16
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.2% [-1.2%, -1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [-1.2%, 2.0%] 17

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%)

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)		 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.4% [-2.4%, -2.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.9% [-2.4%, 0.6%] 2

Cycles

Results (primary 0.8%, secondary 2.3%)

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)		 1.4% [0.9%, 2.2%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.3% [2.1%, 2.4%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.0% [-1.0%, -1.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.8% [-1.0%, 2.2%] 4

Binary size

Results (primary 1.4%)

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)		 1.4% [0.6%, 3.6%] 15
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.4% [0.6%, 3.6%] 15

Bootstrap: 750.905s -> 747.933s (-0.40%)
Artifact size: 339.10 MiB -> 339.28 MiB (0.05%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Aug 18, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Aug 31, 2024

@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 Aug 31, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129222 - saethlin:more-incr-cgus, r=<try>
e31e69b 
Use more CGUs in incremental compilation

Just wondering how this looks in perf...

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 31, 2024

⌛ Trying commit f5425e2 with merge e31e69b...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 1, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e31e69b (e31e69bf291c10599c7385b60d016b6a8e24766b)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Sep 1, 2024

Finished benchmarking commit (e31e69b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 6.8% [0.3%, 34.7%] 54
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.7% [0.4%, 17.2%] 25
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.1% [-1.6%, -0.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -5.6% [-37.6%, -0.3%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) 6.4% [-1.6%, 34.7%] 57

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary 0.2%)

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)		 1.8% [0.4%, 10.7%] 42
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 1.0% [0.4%, 10.2%] 53
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.3% [-5.4%, -0.4%] 22
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.2% [-14.7%, -0.4%] 34
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [-5.4%, 10.7%] 64

Cycles

Results (primary 4.8%, 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)		 6.8% [0.4%, 32.5%] 63
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.1% [0.4%, 17.3%] 58
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.9% [-3.3%, -0.4%] 22
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.6% [-37.5%, -0.4%] 68
All ❌✅ (primary) 4.8% [-3.3%, 32.5%] 85

Binary size

Results (primary 19.0%, secondary 13.3%)

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)		 19.0% [0.3%, 81.7%] 63
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 13.3% [1.4%, 52.8%] 16
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 19.0% [0.3%, 81.7%] 63

Bootstrap: 789.576s -> 787.4s (-0.28%)
Artifact size: 338.70 MiB -> 338.80 MiB (0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 1, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 9, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Nov 22, 2024

@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 Nov 22, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@saethlin saethlin closed this Nov 23, 2024
@saethlin saethlin reopened this Nov 23, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

saethlin commented Nov 23, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 23, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 1ce8857 with merge fae4bb9...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129222 - saethlin:more-incr-cgus, r=<try>
fae4bb9 
Use more CGUs in incremental compilation

Just wondering how this looks in perf...

r? `@ghost`
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 23, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fae4bb9 (fae4bb9970edc41a49d01caf73fad9d71ae19f1c)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Nov 23, 2024

Finished benchmarking commit (fae4bb9): 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)		 6.4% [0.2%, 33.8%] 53
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 5.2% [0.4%, 19.3%] 18
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -7.8% [-42.0%, -0.4%] 17
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -12.2% [-36.1%, -0.2%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.9% [-42.0%, 33.8%] 70

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.8%, secondary -2.2%)

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)		 4.3% [1.1%, 11.5%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 5.8% [2.2%, 9.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -7.2% [-19.8%, -2.0%] 17
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -6.2% [-17.3%, -1.4%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.8% [-19.8%, 11.5%] 24

Cycles

Results (primary 5.2%, secondary 4.3%)

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)		 8.9% [1.2%, 33.2%] 46
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 6.8% [2.0%, 23.5%] 16
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -11.4% [-39.2%, -2.0%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -35.8% [-35.8%, -35.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 5.2% [-39.2%, 33.2%] 56

Binary size

Results (primary 13.1%, secondary 9.6%)

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)		 15.5% [0.0%, 81.1%] 70
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 11.5% [0.0%, 52.6%] 24
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.9% [-11.0%, -0.0%] 11
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.7% [-6.0%, -0.1%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) 13.1% [-11.0%, 81.1%] 81

Bootstrap: 795.832s -> 797.847s (0.25%)
Artifact size: 336.26 MiB -> 336.31 MiB (0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 23, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-log-analyzer commented Jan 28, 2025

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-18 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) 
#21 exporting to docker image format
#21 sending tarball 28.1s done
#21 DONE 41.1s
##[endgroup]
Setting extra environment values for docker:  --env ENABLE_GCC_CODEGEN=1 --env GCC_EXEC_PREFIX=/usr/lib/gcc/
[CI_JOB_NAME=x86_64-gnu-llvm-18]
debug: `DISABLE_CI_RUSTC_IF_INCOMPATIBLE` configured.
---
sccache: Starting the server...
##[group]Configure the build
configure: processing command line
configure: 
configure: build.configure-args := ['--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu', '--llvm-root=/usr/lib/llvm-18', '--enable-llvm-link-shared', '--set', 'rust.randomize-layout=true', '--set', 'rust.thin-lto-import-instr-limit=10', '--enable-verbose-configure', '--enable-sccache', '--disable-manage-submodules', '--enable-locked-deps', '--enable-cargo-native-static', '--set', 'rust.codegen-units-std=1', '--set', 'dist.compression-profile=balanced', '--dist-compression-formats=xz', '--set', 'rust.lld=false', '--disable-dist-src', '--release-channel=nightly', '--enable-debug-assertions', '--enable-overflow-checks', '--enable-llvm-assertions', '--set', 'rust.verify-llvm-ir', '--set', 'rust.codegen-backends=llvm,cranelift,gcc', '--set', 'llvm.static-libstdcpp', '--enable-new-symbol-mangling']
configure: target.x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.llvm-config := /usr/lib/llvm-18/bin/llvm-config
configure: llvm.link-shared     := True
configure: rust.randomize-layout := True
configure: rust.thin-lto-import-instr-limit := 10
---
---- [codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/local-drop-glue.rs stdout ----

The following items were assigned to wrong codegen units:

fn mod1::user
  expected: local_drop_glue-mod1[External] 
  actual:   local_drop_glue-mod1-user[External] 
fn user
fn user
  expected: local_drop_glue[External] 
  actual:   local_drop_glue-user[External] 

thread '[codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/local-drop-glue.rs' panicked at src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest/codegen_units.rs:105:13:
explicit panic
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

---- [codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/extern-drop-glue.rs stdout ----

The following items were assigned to wrong codegen units:

fn mod1::user
  expected: extern_drop_glue-mod1[External] 
  actual:   extern_drop_glue-mod1-user[External] 
fn user
fn user
  expected: extern_drop_glue[External] 
  actual:   extern_drop_glue-user[External] 

thread '[codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/extern-drop-glue.rs' panicked at src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest/codegen_units.rs:105:13:
explicit panic


---- [codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/vtable-through-const.rs stdout ----

The following items were assigned to wrong codegen units:

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait1>::do_something
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait1>::do_something_else
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait1Gen<u8>>::do_something
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait1Gen<u8>>::do_something_else
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait2>::do_something
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait2>::do_something_else
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait2Gen<u8>>::do_something
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn <mod1::NeedsDrop as mod1::Trait2Gen<u8>>::do_something_else
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-NeedsDrop.volatile[External] 

fn mod1::id::<char>
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[External] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-id.volatile[External] 

fn mod1::id::<i64>
  expected: vtable_through_const-mod1.volatile[Internal] 
  actual:   vtable_through_const-mod1-id.volatile[Internal] 

thread '[codegen-units] tests/codegen-units/partitioning/vtable-through-const.rs' panicked at src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest/codegen_units.rs:105:13:
explicit panic

@saethlin saethlin closed this Feb 1, 2025
@saethlin saethlin deleted the more-incr-cgus branch February 1, 2025 04:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

perf-regression Performance regression. S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@saethlin @rust-timer @bors @rust-log-analyzer @rustbot @Dylan-DPC