Optimize Clippy with PGO

[Kobzol]

View all comments

After rustdoc and Cargo, this seemed like an obvious target for PGO.

Perf results: https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=390279b302ca98ae270f434100ae3730531d1246&end=caf67342a544d6eab7a40ebf0d02e802f62008a4&stat=instructions:u

• Quick try build that doesn't optimize Clippy
• Full try build that optimizes Clippy

[Kobzol]

@bors try

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer queue profiles=Check,Debug,Opt,Doc,Clippy

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for 2dc0eb1 failed: CI. Failed job:

• try - dist-x86_64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[Kobzol]

@bors try

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3542ef2 (3542ef25e63b309ca2515102fb81bc590cbabcef)
Base parent: cde3f8a (cde3f8aee5a30928872e2438e3f18238a3fa306c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3542ef2): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary -0.8%)

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)	5.8%	[5.8%, 5.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-4.1%, -2.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.5%, secondary -3.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 486.164s -> 485.416s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 387.87 MiB -> 387.92 MiB (0.01%)

[Kobzol]

@bors try jobs=dist-x86_64-linux @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9e8b7aa (9e8b7aa75dfcaaee85081452174dfaf8fb2283aa)
Base parent: b9ee8d8 (b9ee8d8bcb1e4c7905a183a37e6d984c4b9a8468)

[Kobzol]

I forgot to include the Clippy benchmarks 🤦‍♂️

@bors try jobs=dist-x86_64-linux

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Fallback group: @Mark-Simulacrum, @jieyouxu
• @Mark-Simulacrum, @jieyouxu expanded to Mark-Simulacrum, jieyouxu
• Random selection from Mark-Simulacrum, jieyouxu

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[Kobzol]

@bors try jobs=dist-x86_64-linux @rust-timer queue profiles=check,clippy

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 85c3057 (85c3057f0e46dd796a9c246ec887934424d552e1)
Base parent: 9ba81c2 (9ba81c26fe1be0c8730083a1b6da070bc7c51726)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (85c3057): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.0%	[-18.8%, -0.8%]	79
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.9%	[-19.5%, -0.4%]	95
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.0%	[-18.8%, -0.8%]	79

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.3%, secondary -2.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-4.4%, -0.4%]	76
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-3.9%, -0.4%]	112
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-4.4%, 0.8%]	77

Cycles

Results (primary -5.2%, secondary -5.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[0.4%, 6.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.4%	[-25.2%, -0.5%]	80
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.0%	[-25.6%, -0.4%]	98
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.2%	[-25.2%, 6.3%]	82

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 455.183s -> 455.618s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 398.99 MiB -> 398.96 MiB (-0.01%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit d77e1e4 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: Main branch is broken

[jhpratt]

@bors p=6 scheduling

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Duration: 3h 14s
Pushing 0cfa1c4 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 095d9ef (parent) -> 0cfa1c4 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 3 test diffs

3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 0cfa1c40c6a6165adbcdb2bc5f973a9d7389186e --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-gnu: 1h 44m -> 2h 38m (+52.3%)
2. i686-gnu-2: 1h 6m -> 1h 40m (+52.1%)
3. armhf-gnu: 1h 11m -> 1h 31m (+27.0%)
4. pr-check-1: 32m 53s -> 41m 40s (+26.7%)
5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3: 1h 27m -> 1h 50m (+26.2%)
6. i686-gnu-nopt-2: 2h 22m -> 1h 46m (-24.7%)
7. dist-various-1: 48m 48s -> 37m 44s (-22.7%)
8. dist-armhf-linux: 1h 27m -> 1h 8m (-22.0%)
9. dist-ohos-armv7: 1h 3m -> 1h 16m (+21.5%)
10. dist-i686-linux: 1h 45m -> 1h 25m (-19.7%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0cfa1c4): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.5%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Cycles

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, 0.0%]	3

Bootstrap: 456.409s -> 456.922s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 398.95 MiB -> 398.89 MiB (-0.02%)