Various local trait item iteration cleanups #139018

oli-obk · 2025-03-27T11:58:25Z

Adding a trait impl for Foo unconditionally affected all queries that are interested in a completely independent trait Bar. Perf has no effect on this. We probably don't have a good perf test for this tho.

r? @compiler-errors

I am unsure about 9d05efb as it doesn't improve anything wrt incremental, because we still do all the checks for valid Drop impls, which subsequently will still invoke many queries and basically keep the depgraph the same.

I want to do

rust/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/trait_def.rs

Line 141 in 9549077

// FIXME: This depends on the set of all impls for the trait. That is

but would leave that to a follow-up PR, this one changes enough things as it is

oli-obk · 2025-03-27T12:00:13Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…try> Decouple trait impls of different traits wrt incremental Adding a trait impl for `Foo` unconditionally affected all queries that are interested in a completely independent trait `Bar`. Let's see if perf has any effect on this. If not, we can land it and I poke further at it to see if we can decouple things further. We probably don't have a good perf test for it tho. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2025-03-27T12:01:26Z

⌛ Trying commit f391497 with merge 6e1b141...

bors · 2025-03-27T14:08:57Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 6e1b141 (6e1b1415674df8a0a976d5a0804159b129f3868b)

rust-timer · 2025-03-27T15:25:03Z

Finished benchmarking commit (6e1b141): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.8%, secondary -0.1%)

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.9%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-3.0%, -1.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 779.46s -> 778.12s (-0.17%)
Artifact size: 365.95 MiB -> 365.95 MiB (0.00%)

oli-obk · 2025-03-27T16:58:58Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…try> Decouple trait impls of different traits wrt incremental Adding a trait impl for `Foo` unconditionally affected all queries that are interested in a completely independent trait `Bar`. Let's see if perf has any effect on this. If not, we can land it and I poke further at it to see if we can decouple things further. We probably don't have a good perf test for it tho. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2025-03-27T17:00:15Z

⌛ Trying commit 9d05efb with merge b82ca8c...

bors · 2025-03-27T19:06:46Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b82ca8c (b82ca8cbd7c181a1f538c8a2bda13bae748efe04)

rust-timer · 2025-03-27T21:23:23Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b82ca8c): 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 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, 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)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.7%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-3.1%, -1.0%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	3

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	52
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	52

Bootstrap: 779.46s -> 778.646s (-0.10%)
Artifact size: 365.95 MiB -> 365.95 MiB (0.00%)

…t instead

oli-obk · 2025-04-01T09:44:11Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/check_const_item_mutation.rs

-        match self.tcx.adt_destructor(def_id) {
-            Some(_) => None,
-            None => Some(def_id),
+        match self.tcx.type_of(def_id).skip_binder().ty_adt_def().map(|adt| adt.has_dtor(self.tcx))


previously this was using the def_id of the const, which accidentally worked because the query invoked type_of on it internally.

rustbot · 2025-04-01T11:25:23Z

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

HIR ty lowering was modified

cc @fmease

compiler-errors

r=me after question

compiler-errors · 2025-04-01T22:04:10Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/check_const_item_mutation.rs

-        match self.tcx.adt_destructor(def_id) {
-            Some(_) => None,
-            None => Some(def_id),
+        match self.tcx.type_of(def_id).skip_binder().ty_adt_def().map(|adt| adt.has_dtor(self.tcx))


This logic seems kinda sketch lol. Do we want to check that the type of the const needs_drop rather than just checking if it has a dtor directly?

I guess it's preexisting.

Maybe fixme here rather than changing it, since it's possibly public facing.

I'll check if we want direct impls explicitly and leave a fixme if that's so or a comment otherwise

… impls

oli-obk · 2025-04-02T07:36:05Z

@bors r=compiler-errors

bors · 2025-04-02T07:36:08Z

📌 Commit 49c74d2 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-04-02T10:10:54Z

⌛ Testing commit 49c74d2 with merge ae9173d...

bors · 2025-04-02T13:19:13Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing ae9173d to master...

github-actions · 2025-04-02T13:20:40Z

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 79de6c0 (parent) -> ae9173d (this PR)

Test differences

Show 58 test diffs

Additionally, 58 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Job duration changes

dist-aarch64-apple: 5048.9s -> 5931.1s (17.5%)
aarch64-gnu-debug: 6220.3s -> 6591.4s (6.0%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 5036.7s -> 5334.3s (5.9%)
x86_64-gnu-tools: 6000.4s -> 6352.5s (5.9%)
dist-android: 2557.0s -> 2695.1s (5.4%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-18-3: 6641.9s -> 6965.8s (4.9%)
x86_64-gnu-nopt: 5361.3s -> 5602.3s (4.5%)
test-various: 4109.0s -> 4288.7s (4.4%)
x86_64-msvc-2: 6572.6s -> 6842.3s (4.1%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2687.3s -> 2789.0s (3.8%)

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 · 2025-04-02T15:34:41Z

Finished benchmarking commit (ae9173d): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
a new PR with a fix for the regression.
If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	40
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.2%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.1%, 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)	1.1%	[0.5%, 2.2%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[1.0%, 5.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-2.9%, -0.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-2.9%, 2.2%]	10

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.5%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	52
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	52

Bootstrap: 776.227s -> 776.507s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 365.99 MiB -> 366.05 MiB (0.02%)

…ompiler-errors Various local trait item iteration cleanups Adding a trait impl for `Foo` unconditionally affected all queries that are interested in a completely independent trait `Bar`. Perf has no effect on this. We probably don't have a good perf test for this tho. r? `@compiler-errors` I am unsure about rust-lang@9d05efb as it doesn't improve anything wrt incremental, because we still do all the checks for valid `Drop` impls, which subsequently will still invoke many queries and basically keep the depgraph the same. I want to do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9549077a47099dc826039c051b528d1013740e6f/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/trait_def.rs#L141 but would leave that to a follow-up PR, this one changes enough things as it is

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 27, 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 27, 2025

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 27, 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 27, 2025

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 27, 2025

oli-obk added 6 commits April 1, 2025 09:25

Decouple trait impls of different traits wrt incremental

a7b687c

Remove an unnecessary dtor computation and use the cached query resul…

aec7739

…t instead

Make missing optimized MIR error more informative

c0fe46d

Store adt_destructor in metadata

23f1fb5

Store adt_async_destructor in metadata

2b1c416

Ensure calculcate_dtor is only ever called on local types

51184c7

oli-obk commented Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

oli-obk force-pushed the incremental-trait-impls branch from 9d05efb to b1402f7 Compare April 1, 2025 11:20

oli-obk changed the title ~~Decouple trait impls of different traits wrt incremental~~ Various local trait item iteration cleanups Apr 1, 2025

rustbot assigned compiler-errors Apr 1, 2025

oli-obk marked this pull request as ready for review April 1, 2025 11:25

compiler-errors approved these changes Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

oli-obk added 6 commits April 2, 2025 07:30

Only look at trait impls in the current crate when looking for Drop…

ca32447

… impls

Fetch the destructor constness lazily

6697f02

Directly fetch the impl self type

7192a06

Remove a hir_* helper that was just forwarding to a query

062ef53

Remove a function that has no necessary callers

7989879

Only walk local items instead of filtering for them later

49c74d2

oli-obk force-pushed the incremental-trait-impls branch from b1402f7 to 49c74d2 Compare April 2, 2025 07:30

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 2, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 2, 2025

bors merged commit ae9173d into rust-lang:master Apr 2, 2025
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.88.0 milestone Apr 2, 2025

bors mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2025

Improve dead code analysis for structs and traits defined locally #128637

Open

rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Apr 2, 2025

oli-obk deleted the incremental-trait-impls branch April 2, 2025 15:51

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2025

ICE: should not be requesting the constness of items that can't be const: ImplItem( #139278

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Various local trait item iteration cleanups #139018

Various local trait item iteration cleanups #139018

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 27, 2025

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 27, 2025

oli-obk Apr 1, 2025

rustbot commented Apr 1, 2025

compiler-errors left a comment

compiler-errors Apr 1, 2025

compiler-errors Apr 1, 2025

compiler-errors Apr 1, 2025

oli-obk Apr 2, 2025

oli-obk commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2025

rust-timer commented Apr 2, 2025

Various local trait item iteration cleanups #139018

Various local trait item iteration cleanups #139018

Conversation

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025 • edited Loading

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 27, 2025

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

bors commented Mar 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 27, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rustbot commented Apr 1, 2025

compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

oli-obk commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2025

Test differences

Job duration changes

rust-timer commented Apr 2, 2025

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

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading