Optimize Ref<_, T> methods when T: Sized (#2752)

[bmberger]

With optimization:
test r#ref::benches::bench_deref_mut_sized ... bench: 0.64 ns/iter (+/- 0.25)
test r#ref::benches::bench_deref_sized ... bench: 0.54 ns/iter (+/- 0.20)
test r#ref::benches::bench_from_bytes_sized ... bench: 5.71 ns/iter (+/- 1.59)
test r#ref::benches::bench_into_mut_sized ... bench: 0.66 ns/iter (+/- 0.05)
test r#ref::benches::bench_into_ref_sized ... bench: 0.88 ns/iter (+/- 0.08)

Without optimization:
test r#ref::benches::bench_deref_mut_sized ... bench: 0.74 ns/iter (+/- 0.09)
test r#ref::benches::bench_deref_sized ... bench: 0.69 ns/iter (+/- 0.10)
test r#ref::benches::bench_from_bytes_sized ... bench: 5.09 ns/iter (+/- 0.42)
test r#ref::benches::bench_into_mut_sized ... bench: 0.68 ns/iter (+/- 0.08)
test r#ref::benches::bench_into_ref_sized ... bench: 0.88 ns/iter (+/- 0.01)

Closes #2752

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @bmberger, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces targeted optimizations for Ref methods within the zerocopy crate when dealing with Sized types. The goal is to improve performance by allowing direct pointer manipulation, avoiding unnecessary intermediate conversions. While initial benchmarks show only minimal performance changes, the update refines the internal handling of Sized types and includes new benchmarks to monitor these specific operations.

Highlights

• Optimization for Sized Types: Implemented a specialized code path for Ref<_, T> methods (into_ref, into_mut, deref, deref_mut) when the generic type T is Sized.
• Direct Pointer Manipulation: This optimization bypasses intermediate ByteSlice conversions by directly using Ptr for Sized types, aiming for improved efficiency.
• New Benchmarks: Added dedicated benchmark tests to measure the performance of these optimized Ref methods specifically for Sized types.
• Test Feature Enablement: Enabled the test feature in src/lib.rs to support the new benchmarks.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an optimization for Sized types in several methods of Ref<_, T>. The logic seems sound, and the addition of benchmarks is a great way to validate the performance impact. My main feedback is regarding significant code duplication across four methods, which could be refactored to improve maintainability. I've provided a suggestion to use a macro to deduplicate this logic.

[joshlf]

We're probably about to make a bit of noise for you on this PR, but also hopefully make your life a bit easier, with #2860. Let's hold off working on this for a few days until #2860 lands?

[joshlf]

Okay, I've rebased on main and force-pushed. @bmberger you should be able to download these changes and continue working on them.

[joshlf]

Please update the commit message with new benchmark numbers, but otherwise LGTM!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.02%. Comparing base (8dfa29b) to head (ab598ae).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2758      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.89%   92.02%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        5773     5870      +97     
==========================================
+ Hits         5305     5402      +97     
  Misses        468      468              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.