Use horde's SyncTable for default query caches and CtxtInterners

[Zoxc]

This uses the hash map from my horde crate as the default query cache map and in CtxtInterners. The main benefit of it is that it offers lock-free reads.

This is a proper version of the test in #138419.

This adds a intermediary SyncTable type which uses our dynamic Lock instead of the always-on lock integrated in horde::SyncTable, as this avoids lock overhead for the -Zthreads=1 case.

This integrates the quiescent state based memory reclamation scheme by marking query execution as quiescent with collect and calling release when we're blocking.

[Zoxc]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 810b08b (810b08be87ff4ade9ca65bf4374cb14ff0468a37, parent: 620e36a8d1fc2f9e5694ce83c2631877651a962c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (810b08b): 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%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	123
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.1%, 1.9%]	129
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	123

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -9.0%)

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)	1.3%	[0.8%, 2.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-11.6%	[-15.2%, -1.0%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 3.5%, 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)	3.5%	[1.4%, 7.0%]	54
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[1.9%, 8.9%]	60
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.1%	[-7.3%, -2.7%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.5%	[1.4%, 7.0%]	54

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 483.729s -> 488.9s (1.07%)
Artifact size: 396.86 MiB -> 395.01 MiB (-0.47%)

[Zoxc]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a20b8ea (a20b8ea6796c024e8171574fe9e57407f66541d1, parent: e0a8361373c88bd791b5b1335c6cbf83cd68e4d5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a20b8ea): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	86
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.0%, 1.5%]	107
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	28
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.3%, 0.7%]	91

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary -9.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 1.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-11.0%	[-15.3%, -1.0%]	18
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 3.4%, secondary 3.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[2.2%, 6.5%]	36
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[1.6%, 7.3%]	51
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-7.1%, -2.0%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[2.2%, 6.5%]	36

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 480.839s -> 488.485s (1.59%)
Artifact size: 396.90 MiB -> 397.07 MiB (0.05%)