Fix the `FileEncoder` buffer size. by nnethercote · Pull Request #111088 · rust-...
source link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111088
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Conversation
Contributor
It allows a variable size, but in practice we always use the default of 8192 bytes. This commit fixes it to that size, which makes things slightly faster because the size can be hard-wired in generated code.
The commit also:
- Rearranges some buffer capacity checks so they're all in the same form (
x > BUFSIZE
). - Removes some buffer capacity assertions and comments about them. With an 8192 byte buffer, we're not in any danger of overflowing a
usize
.
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
Contributor
Author
This was a small (sub-1%) but widespread win for me locally, let's see what happens on CI. @bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label
Contributor
Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
Collaborator
Finished benchmarking commit (e959c1c): comparison URL. Overall result: improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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 Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results CyclesResults Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 655.55s -> 655.596s (0.01%) |
removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label
Contributor
Author
@bors r=WaffleLapkin |
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
Contributor
Test failed - checks-actions |
added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
labels
This comment has been minimized.
Member
@bors retry |
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
Contributor
Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Error message |
removed the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label
added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label
Contributor
The latest upstream changes (presumably #111231) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Contributor
Author
I rebased. @bors r=WaffleLapkin |
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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
labels
Contributor
Testing commit f2df861 with merge 8006510ab0f69ee75e9c3f7e8bff3776886dae51... |
Contributor
Test successful - checks-actions |
Collaborator
Finished benchmarking commit (8006510): comparison URL. Overall result: regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDEDNext Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 640.795s -> 641.463s (0.10%) |
Member
This is a win overall, and the one regression looks like a return to steady-state after a noisy improvement in the preceding PR #108273 (comment) @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
None yet
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK