Merge mir query analysis invocations

[oli-obk]

r? @ghost

same thing as #140854 just a different set of queries

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d63b394 with merge bddede8...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bddede8 (bddede841a3c4fe1b7794ae75ad7036a512e5d30)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bddede8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary -2.2%)

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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-2.7%, -0.5%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-4.0%, -0.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.7%, 1.1%]	23

Cycles

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	1.8%	[0.4%, 3.9%]	26
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.5%	[3.2%, 5.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.3%, -0.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.0%	[-7.8%, -6.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-1.3%, 3.9%]	29

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.559s -> 774.531s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.71 MiB -> 365.58 MiB (-0.03%)

[oli-obk]

@Zoxc do you think changes like this are detrimental to parallel rustc?

[Zoxc]

Merging parallel sections is generally good, but actual measurements are also nice.

[oli-obk]

Right. I'll figure out how to do that locally. But until then

r? @nnethercote

[oli-obk]

Ah no I forgot the regression only shows in cycles, not in instructions...

[oli-obk]

Branch misses and cache misses are also really badly regressed. So my original analysis still stands, even if wall time itself is not really affected