Repository navigation
Speed up obligation forest code - #51411
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
`process_predicates` returns a `Result<Option<Vec<PredicateObligation>>>`. `process_obligation` calls it and then fiddles with the output (using `map`, `map`, `into_iter`, `collect`) to produce a a `Result<Option<Vec<PendingPredicateObligation>>>`. This function is sufficiently hot that the fiddling is expensive. It's much better for `process_predicate` to directly return a `Result<Option<Vec<PendingPredicateObligation>>>` because `Ok(None)` accounts for ~90% of the results, and `Ok(vec![])` accounts for another ~5%.
Because it has a single callsite. This patch is large but trivial, doing the minimal amount of work (mostly `self.` insertions) necessary.
It's very hot, and this speeds things up.
A tri-valued enum is nicer than Result<Option<T>>, and it's slightly faster.
nnethercote
force-pushed
the
process_predicate
branch
from
June 7, 2018 11:42
9c5dbd3 to
c83d152
Compare
Member
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit c83d152 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit c83d152 with merge b541bf54dca84e576bb481a6992bf743dcebf8bd... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
1 similar comment
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Contributor
Author
This is clearly an infra failure. |
Member
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2018
Speed up obligation forest code
Here are the rustc-perf benchmarks that get at least a 1% speedup on one or more of their runs with these patches applied:
```
inflate-check
avg: -8.7% min: -12.1% max: 0.0%
inflate
avg: -5.9% min: -8.6% max: 1.1%
inflate-opt
avg: -1.5% min: -2.0% max: -0.3%
clap-rs-check
avg: -0.6% min: -1.9% max: 0.5%
coercions
avg: -0.2%? min: -1.3%? max: 0.6%?
serde-opt
avg: -0.6% min: -1.0% max: 0.1%
coercions-check
avg: -0.4%? min: -1.0%? max: -0.0%?
```
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Here are the rustc-perf benchmarks that get at least a 1% speedup on one or more of their runs with these patches applied: