Skip to content

Conversation

@saethlin
Copy link
Member

I've noticed that in a lot of perf reports, there is a bit of jitter in the artifact sizes that doesn't make any sense. I'm doing a perf run here with no diff to see if that happens and hopefully dissect it.

r? ghost

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jan 28, 2025
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 28, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2025
[perf] noise run

I've noticed that in a lot of perf reports, there is a bit of jitter in the artifact sizes that doesn't make any sense. I'm doing a perf run here with no diff to see if that happens and hopefully dissect it.

r? ghost
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 28, 2025

⌛ Trying commit c3ac92f with merge b5eec15...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 28, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b5eec15 (b5eec15e6ce31d8812aff1fa76ae40d17c059998)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b5eec15): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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

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)
0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 6.7%)

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)
0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
6.7% [6.7%, 6.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -1.0%)

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)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.7% [-3.0%, -2.3%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 772.501s -> 771.99s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 328.24 MiB -> 328.22 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 28, 2025
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

lmao

@saethlin saethlin closed this Jan 28, 2025
@saethlin saethlin deleted the noise branch January 28, 2025 18:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants