Skip to content

rustdoc: calculate effective visibilities of crates on-demand #147482

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
Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

rustdoc: calculate effective visibilities of crates on-demand #147482

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+37 −9

Conversation

lolbinarycat
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 8, 2025
@lolbinarycat
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #147482 - lolbinarycat:rustdoc-lib_embargo_visit-on-dem…
b0cbaf1 
…and, r=<try>

rustdoc: calculate effective visibilities of crates on-demand
@rust-bors

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 Oct 8, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Oct 8, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b0cbaf1 (b0cbaf1f07e2a7e0dc40cf1c48218609ef16d932, parent: 82224f6891c7e7aa0c6c865aa825100b3ea2d0fb)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b0cbaf1): 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)		 0.2% [0.1%, 0.3%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.2% [-0.6%, -0.1%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-0.2%, 0.3%] 8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.5%, secondary 1.7%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 2.5% [2.5%, 2.5%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 1.7% [1.7%, 1.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.5% [2.5%, 2.5%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary -1.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.9% [-3.8%, -2.1%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.927s -> 473.682s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 388.42 MiB -> 388.42 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 Oct 8, 2025
@lolbinarycat
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm curious how this would perform on something much larger like zed. The large-workspace case did see an improvement around what i estimated (0.5%)

unfortunatly the overhead of the locking is fairly significant. there are a few different things that could be tried to mitegate that, such as using a datastructure with multiple levels of nested maps (Map<CrateNum, DefIdSet>) so that the write lock only needs to be acquired momentarily, instead of being held through the entire traversal process.

@lolbinarycat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright, I tried a few alternatives and none worked. Could maybe be workable with a bit more effort. Also worth considering if the current change is just "good enough" already.

the two-stage hashmap design didn't work because it's not actually correct, presumably because of inlined items or something similar (making it so a crate can contain DefIds that are actually from a different crate) (do we need to be traversing into inlined modules, actually?)

DefIdSet is UnordSet which is not IntoIterator and provides no alternative method for merging. I guess I could use BTreeMap<DefId>?

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-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc 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.
3 participants
@lolbinarycat @rust-timer @rustbot