[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables by oli-obk · Pull Request #138995 · rust-lang/rust

oli-obk · 2025-03-26T18:23:03Z

Basically necessary for #138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise (1% primary, 2% secondary regressions) while the hir_crate query is still a thing.

My goal is to split the resolver tables into per-owner tables, so that all information that ast lowering needs from the resolver is separated by owners. This should allow us to fully split ast lowering to have one query invocation per owner that steal the individual resolver results for each owner.

Alternatively we keep the entire resolver state around until hir_crate_items has run and steal and drop it then.

oli-obk · 2025-03-26T18:23:14Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-03-26T18:24:25Z

⌛ Trying commit 33f5615 with merge 792af13...

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-26T20:30:56Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 792af13 (792af13061770b940e351039beebe10bd97d4627)

rust-timer · 2025-03-26T21:48:18Z

Finished benchmarking commit (792af13): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	69
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 0.5%)

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)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.0%, 2.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.4%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.5%)

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)	2.2%	[1.5%, 2.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.7%, -1.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.548s -> 776.554s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.81 MiB -> 365.80 MiB (-0.01%)

oli-obk · 2025-03-28T12:20:32Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-03-28T12:21:45Z

⌛ Trying commit a16a6f1 with merge 66f172c...

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-28T14:29:54Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 66f172c (66f172c845b537c43e7e41f92eaf99957253f6bd)

rust-timer · 2025-03-28T16:04:26Z

Finished benchmarking commit (66f172c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 2.1%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary 2.7%)

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)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[2.0%, 7.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.9%)

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)	2.9%	[2.0%, 3.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 778.99s -> 777.791s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 365.92 MiB -> 365.97 MiB (0.01%)

oli-obk · 2025-03-28T16:08:05Z

ok... better, but not great yet either

oli-obk · 2025-03-31T16:06:25Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables r? `@ghost` just doing some experiments to see if splitting `hir_crate` is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (rust-lang#95004) Basically necessary for rust-lang#138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the `hir_crate` query is still a thing

bors · 2025-03-31T16:07:37Z

⌛ Trying commit a78e1a6 with merge 012f3ee...

bors · 2025-03-31T18:15:53Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 012f3ee (012f3eec5acc351e2cb934444de98793bf94c9e7)

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables

rust-bors · 2026-02-12T16:35:18Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 225d1a5 (225d1a556f2e27fd6abb9e08f50e50bcac7383ff, parent: 7ad4e69ad585d8ff214f7b42d01f1959eda08f40)

rust-timer · 2026-02-12T17:16:48Z

Finished benchmarking commit (225d1a5): 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%]	43
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.1%, 2.2%]	39
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	43

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.8%, secondary 4.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.7%, 2.3%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[1.2%, 8.8%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-4.4%, -4.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-2.1%, 2.3%]	8

Cycles

Results (primary 3.0%, secondary 7.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[2.1%, 3.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	8.0%	[3.2%, 16.9%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-3.8%, -3.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[2.1%, 3.9%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 480.915s -> 482.851s (0.40%)
Artifact size: 398.15 MiB -> 398.16 MiB (0.00%)

…id_to_def_id`

…ut for modification This is needed for follow-up cleanups as diagnostics still need access to the `NodeId` -> `DefId` map, but only for owners

It was only used for accessing owners anyway, so we can just look at the new owner table directly

oli-obk · 2026-02-20T09:10:15Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables

rust-bors · 2026-02-20T11:21:31Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: e30e7bf (e30e7bff77121e0bde127744bb4cbcc3b05e55e2, parent: ef70767064ab87b0a41400f69e1dc0b55c8d5284)

rust-timer · 2026-02-20T12:01:36Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e30e7bf): 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%, 0.6%]	49
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 2.4%]	44
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.2%, 0.6%]	51

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 0.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[0.7%, 3.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[1.7%, 5.1%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.4%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-4.4%, -3.0%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-2.4%, 3.0%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary 5.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.1%	[1.9%, 5.6%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.3%	[2.0%, 15.3%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[1.9%, 5.6%]	6

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 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%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	6

Bootstrap: 496.246s -> 482.921s (-2.69%)
Artifact size: 397.86 MiB -> 395.90 MiB (-0.49%)

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 26, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Mar 26, 2025

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 33f5615 to a16a6f1 Compare March 28, 2025 12:17

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 28, 2025

bors mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2025

Fix TAIT & ATPIT feature gating in the presence of anon consts #139063

Merged

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 28, 2025

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from a16a6f1 to a78e1a6 Compare March 31, 2025 16:06

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 12, 2026

Auto merge of #138995 - oli-obk:split-resolver, r=<try>

225d1a5

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 12, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 12, 2026

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 0959015 to 3e8279c Compare February 13, 2026 12:28

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 3e8279c to 1406df6 Compare February 20, 2026 08:47

oli-obk and others added 8 commits February 20, 2026 08:49

Remove a needless mutability

400ebb6

Split trait item resolving into its own method

5ec32d0

Replace extension trait with wrapper struct

c98471e

Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables, starting with `node_…

a5da765

…id_to_def_id`

Abstract away the replacing/reinserting of the current owner

c911ddd

Keep the owner DefId around even while the tables have been taken o…

6c889b4

…ut for modification This is needed for follow-up cleanups as diagnostics still need access to the `NodeId` -> `DefId` map, but only for owners

Eliminate opt_local_def_id

76d5040

It was only used for accessing owners anyway, so we can just look at the new owner table directly

Load DefIds from the per owner table

face229

oli-obk force-pushed the split-resolver branch from 1406df6 to face229 Compare February 20, 2026 08:59

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2026

Auto merge of #138995 - oli-obk:split-resolver, r=<try>

e30e7bf

[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 20, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Comments

Conversation

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 26, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 28, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 12, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

oli-obk commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Feb 20, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

oli-obk commented Mar 26, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading