Merge typeck loop with static/const item eval loop

[oli-obk]

r? @ghost

Let's try a small one first. Doing this in general has some bad cache coherence issues because the query caches are laid out in Vec<QueryResult> lists per query where each index refers to a DefId in the same order as we're iterating. Iterating two or more lists at the same time does have cache issues, so I want to poke a bit at it to see if we can't merge just a few of them at a time.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0b6e493 with merge d3f3fe4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d3f3fe4 (d3f3fe44be5bf3c2623eed5609fc19cef74fb365)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d3f3fe4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.3%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary -2.8%)

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)	0.9%	[0.6%, 1.6%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.8%, -0.4%]	22
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-5.2%, -3.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.8%, 1.6%]	26

Cycles

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary -4.3%)

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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.5%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-8.0%	[-8.4%, -7.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-0.4%, 1.5%]	9

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.559s -> 775.822s (0.29%)
Artifact size: 365.71 MiB -> 365.57 MiB (-0.04%)

[oli-obk]

r? @nnethercote

This one doesn't have any branch prediction or cache hit regressions. Likely because the static/const code paths are rare compared with the normal code path

[nnethercote]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0b6e493 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0b6e493 with merge b105556...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing b105556 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 7e432c4 (parent) -> b105556 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard b10555674f355aca2bfe974e50a0b9ab48eb1d87 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-apple-1: 9124.2s -> 6423.6s (-29.6%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 10065.7s -> 7575.3s (-24.7%)
3. dist-apple-various: 7452.6s -> 6075.5s (-18.5%)
4. x86_64-gnu-debug: 5984.0s -> 6478.0s (8.3%)
5. dist-aarch64-apple: 5006.3s -> 5327.0s (6.4%)
6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 3933.8s -> 4122.4s (4.8%)
7. dist-arm-linux: 4791.6s -> 4587.6s (-4.3%)
8. x86_64-msvc-2: 6975.0s -> 6700.9s (-3.9%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 6233.6s -> 6007.6s (-3.6%)
10. dist-aarch64-linux: 5443.2s -> 5634.6s (3.5%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b105556): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.3%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -1.5%)

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)	0.9%	[0.5%, 1.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.1%, 1.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.5%, -0.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.3%, -2.3%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.5%, 1.5%]	11

Cycles

Results (primary 0.4%)

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)	1.0%	[0.7%, 1.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.8%, 1.3%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 772.638s -> 772.555s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 365.44 MiB -> 365.35 MiB (-0.03%)

[panstromek]

Perf triage:

All changes in unicode-normalization. Incremental full improvements outweigh small non-incremental regressions. This matches results in pre-merge run, so I assume it's expected.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged