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.
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
Omit non-needs_drop drop_in_place in vtables #122662
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Omit non-needs_drop drop_in_place in vtables This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k (11%) dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included. This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. I'm not sure that's readily avoidable without changing the vtable format (e.g., so that we can use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` (opening for perf first)
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
1 similar comment
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (58f8d0e): 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)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesResultsThis 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.
Binary sizeResultsThis 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.
Bootstrap: 668.447s -> 665.442s (-0.45%) |
Can't we instead just emit a single no-op drop function shared by all these types, instead of using |
Let's discuss on the MCP Zulip thread to avoid splitting the discussion. |
288ece0
to
080d085
Compare
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Omit non-needs_drop drop_in_place in vtables This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k (11%) dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included. This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. I'm not sure that's readily avoidable without changing the vtable format (e.g., so that we can use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime. Accepted MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#730
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
080d085
to
e4f3c16
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
96eed21
to
d2277a2
Compare
@bors r=oli-obk,bjorn3 rollup=iffy Fixed another test. |
🔒 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?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message
|
This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included. This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. That's hard to avoid without changing the vtable format (e.g., to use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime.
d2277a2
to
ab17641
Compare
@bors r=oli-obk,bjorn3 |
…-obk,bjorn3 Omit non-needs_drop drop_in_place in vtables This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k (11%) dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included. This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. I'm not sure that's readily avoidable without changing the vtable format (e.g., so that we can use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime. Accepted MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#730
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
@bors retry Connection reset by peer in remote-test-client |
…-obk,bjorn3 Omit non-needs_drop drop_in_place in vtables This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k (11%) dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included. This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. I'm not sure that's readily avoidable without changing the vtable format (e.g., so that we can use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime. Accepted MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#730
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k (11%) dynamic relocations from the output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather than having a relocated pointer included.
This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites. I'm not sure that's readily avoidable without changing the vtable format (e.g., so that we can use a pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is cheap at runtime.
Accepted MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#730