[do not merge] test #129714 revert on bootstrap times

[lqd]

It seems we're currently experiencing some instability with the benchmarking results. #129714 had weird results, somehow failing to measure bootstrap and other benchmarks. Since then bootstrap measurements have also increased. Let's see if a revert does anything to bootstrap times at the very least, to see if the PR is maybe involved.

r? ghost

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7841fc6 with merge 60a3a34...

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build 60a3a34

[lqd]

The more the merrier. Now with a #127537 revert, since it seems to be more of the culprit for bootstrap times.

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 892c95c with merge b0dec66...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (60a3a34): 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)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.8%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.0%, 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	33
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	50
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.3%, -0.4%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-3.0%, -0.4%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-2.3%, 1.7%]	53

Cycles

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary -0.0%)

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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 3.5%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.4%, 5.2%]	56
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.9%, -0.4%]	21
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-6.5%, -0.4%]	51
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-2.9%, 3.5%]	51

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 790.965s -> 791.894s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 338.44 MiB -> 338.53 MiB (0.03%)

[lqd]

• bootstrap was measured successfully
• bootstrap times unchanged, and expected, now that we know Implement a first version of RFC 3525: struct target features #127537 should be the root cause instead
• all benchmarks were run
• cycles and max-rss are still going crazy. We'll see if that changes with the Implement a first version of RFC 3525: struct target features #127537 revert, or most likely we'll need to land either/both and see what happens.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b0dec66 (b0dec66dd4ba3f647b067a903fe73f1283153720)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build b0dec66

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b0dec66): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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 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%	[0.5%, 0.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	60
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-2.2%, -0.3%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, 0.7%]	62

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -0.7%)

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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.4%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.3%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.9%, -0.4%]	75
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.7%, -0.4%]	103
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.9%, 1.4%]	90

Cycles

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	1.1%	[0.4%, 3.1%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.4%, 3.6%]	52
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-3.5%, -0.4%]	61
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, -0.4%]	76
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-3.5%, 3.1%]	76

Binary size

Results (primary -0.7%, secondary -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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.6%, -0.0%]	82
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-2.3%, -0.6%]	24
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.6%, -0.0%]	82

Bootstrap: 790.965s -> 751.017s (-5.05%)
Artifact size: 338.44 MiB -> 338.43 MiB (-0.00%)

[lqd]

ready in case #129854 doesn't work out
r? kobzol

[rustbot]

Could not assign reviewer from: kobzol.
User(s) kobzol are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation, and there are no other candidates.
Use r? to specify someone else to assign.

[lqd]

Issue looks to be in the collector DB, no need to merge this.