Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify mono item usage #112162

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 2, 2023
Merged

Clarify mono item usage #112162

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 2, 2023

Conversation

nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Some commits that make the terminology around mono items clearer, and simplify related data structures.

r? @wesleywiser

@rustbot 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 Jun 1, 2023
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Best reviewed one commit at a time.

@nnethercote nnethercote force-pushed the clarify-mono-item-usage branch 2 times, most recently from 4b05961 to bc930a2 Compare June 1, 2023 06:34
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Shouldn't affect perf, but just in case:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 1, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 1, 2023

⌛ Trying commit bc930a272fbce61c53959feb12c2fce0af3f2a99 with merge 986485d2d578953eeac3f8196606bd290371cddf...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 1, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 986485d2d578953eeac3f8196606bd290371cddf (986485d2d578953eeac3f8196606bd290371cddf)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (986485d2d578953eeac3f8196606bd290371cddf): 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

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)		 2.7% [2.2%, 3.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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: 644.818s -> 644.201s (-0.10%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 1, 2023
@nnethercote nnethercote force-pushed the clarify-mono-item-usage branch from bc930a2 to b422fa9 Compare June 1, 2023 22:55
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perf is neutral, and I have rebased.

@nnethercote
Overhaul CGU formation terminology.
de2911f 
Currently, the code uses multiple words to describe when a mono item `f`
uses a mono item `g`, all of which have problems.

- `f` references `g`: confusing because there are multiple kinds of use,
  e.g. "`f` calls `g`" is one, but "`f` takes a (`&T`-style) reference
  of `g`" is another, and that's two subtly different meanings of
  "reference" in play.

- `f` accesses `g`: meh, "accesses" makes me think of data, and this is
  code.

- `g` is a neighbor (or neighbour) of `f`: is verbose, and doesn't
  capture the directionality.

This commit changes the code to use "`f` uses `g`" everywhere. I think
it's better than the current terminology, and the consistency is
important.

Also, `InliningMap` is renamed `UsageMap` because (a) it was always
mostly about usage, and (b) the inlining information it did record was
removed in a recent commit.
@nnethercote
Introduce UsageMap::user_map.
5b0c56b 
`UsageMap` contains `used_map`, which maps from an item to the item it
uses. This commit add `user_map`, which is the inverse.

We already compute this inverse, but later on, and it is only held as a
local variable. Its simpler and nicer to put it next to `used_map`.
@nnethercote
Change representation of UsageMap::used_map.
f1fe797 
It currently uses ranges, which index into `UsageMap::used_items`. This
commit changes it to just use `Vec`, which is much simpler to construct
and use. This change does result in more allocations, but it is few
enough that the perf impact is negligible.
@nnethercote
Simplify place_inlined_mono_items.
3806bad 
Currently it overwrites all the CGUs with new CGUs. But those new CGUs
are just copies of the old CGUs, possibly with some things added. This
commit changes things so that each CGU just gets added to in place,
which makes things simpler and clearer.
@nnethercote
Clarify follow_inlining.
4f800b5 
I found this confusing because it includes the root item, plus the
inlined items reachable from the root item. The new formulation
separates the two parts more clearly.
@nnethercote nnethercote force-pushed the clarify-mono-item-usage branch from b422fa9 to 4f800b5 Compare June 2, 2023 03:13
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

I rebased again.

wesleywiser
wesleywiser approved these changes Jun 2, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@wesleywiser wesleywiser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are great cleanups! Not using Range certainly simplifies the code.

@wesleywiser
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2023

📌 Commit 4f800b5 has been approved by wesleywiser

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors 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 Jun 2, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 4f800b5 with merge dd5d7c7...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: wesleywiser
Pushing dd5d7c7 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 2, 2023
@bors bors merged commit dd5d7c7 into rust-lang:master Jun 2, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.72.0 milestone Jun 2, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (dd5d7c7): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)		 2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.7% [2.4%, 3.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [-0.8%, 2.1%] 2

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: 643.621s -> 645.805s (0.34%)

@nnethercote nnethercote deleted the clarify-mono-item-usage branch June 4, 2023 22:04
@sjwang05 sjwang05 mentioned this pull request Dec 25, 2023
Closed
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@wesleywiser wesleywiser wesleywiser approved these changes

Assignees

@wesleywiser wesleywiser

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.72.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@nnethercote @rust-timer @bors @wesleywiser @rustbot