Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

[cjgillot]

This PR attempts to avoid re-computing check_private_in_public query. First by marking the query as non-eval_always, and by reducing the amount of accesses to HIR as much as possible.

Latest perf #116316 (comment) shows that we manage it. The cost is extra dep-graph bookkeeping.

[rustbot]

r? @WaffleLapkin

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9a97744 with merge 812ab76...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 812ab76 (812ab768194c21ae867bde408151983b4f228327)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (812ab76): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.8%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.2%, -2.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	5

Cycles

Results

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%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Binary size

Results

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 627.128s -> 628.596s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 273.31 MiB -> 273.30 MiB (-0.00%)

[asquared31415]

The perf data looks odd to me, a significant portion of the regressions, including all of the regressions above 1%, have a seemingly spurious downwards spike at the very end of the 30 day graph of similar magnitude to the reported increase for each of those tests.

edit: That may not be spurious improvements, the previous commit was a PR that was expected to have performance improvements. I'm still not convinced that this change should have completely undone them though.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1da8198 with merge cba27a0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cba27a0 (cba27a05c3d7a5f0ce190594f875d21511b1d732)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cba27a0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 620.955s -> 621.494s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 271.99 MiB -> 272.04 MiB (0.02%)

[petrochenkov]

The second comment's name suggests that it might have some intersection with #113671, but apparently it does not.

[petrochenkov]

Status is not very clear, still waiting on author.
@cjgillot Do you plan to work on completing it this year?

[petrochenkov]

Closing due to inactivity.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9515b09 with merge 277fb22...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 277fb22 (277fb22d01b99c076cf46cc7149c04f2018706e6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (277fb22): 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)	0.6%	[0.2%, 2.1%]	28
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.5%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.7%, -0.2%]	49
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-1.3%, -0.2%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-2.7%, 2.1%]	77

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.1%	[1.6%, 6.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[-2.2%, 6.6%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.5%)

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.087s -> 466.261s (0.25%)
Artifact size: 374.54 MiB -> 374.53 MiB (-0.00%)

[petrochenkov]

I'm not sure if the "Use less HIR" part by itself is a perf regression (due to more deps), or an improvement (due to reuse), or neutral.
Perhaps it makes sense to land and benchmark it separately?
@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.