[DO NOT MERGE] default x64 linux target to x64-v2 for perf test

[lqd]

Another perf test like #90440, but on x64-v2.

r? @ghost

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 5c078dc3ac0f6dd9a136d2241fcc4ba24238c565 with merge c7e2a3ab68a1894d6a01a41078454ee7c52e61e3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c7e2a3ab68a1894d6a01a41078454ee7c52e61e3 (c7e2a3ab68a1894d6a01a41078454ee7c52e61e3)

[rust-timer]

Queued c7e2a3ab68a1894d6a01a41078454ee7c52e61e3 with parent 8a0c550, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c7e2a3ab68a1894d6a01a41078454ee7c52e61e3): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 164 relevant improvements 🎉 to instruction counts.

• Arithmetic mean of relevant improvements: -0.4%
• Largest improvement in instruction counts: -0.9% on full builds of externs debug

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

[lqd]

Even if we somehow were able to bump to v2 minimum or distribute 2 x64 versions, it would not super interesting by itself. It could help with using SIMD in LEB128 encoding/decoding, or parsing (via pshufb), etc but there are no worthwhile perf gains due to the higher micro arch level itself (which makes sense, they should come mostly from autovectorization in this context, and that would start having noticeable improvements with the higher lane counts of AVX).

Might as well have up-to-date x64-v3 results, on the new benchmarks and new LLVM, so:
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3598f3bc2a09fbbb5272d0a4f51b42723ab7e7ae with merge 0c6a6f5061902626d38e28f946782927a6cc3897...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0c6a6f5061902626d38e28f946782927a6cc3897 (0c6a6f5061902626d38e28f946782927a6cc3897)

[rust-timer]

Queued 0c6a6f5061902626d38e28f946782927a6cc3897 with parent 185a3f0, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0c6a6f5061902626d38e28f946782927a6cc3897): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 448 relevant improvements 🎉 to instruction counts.

• Arithmetic mean of relevant improvements: -1.6%
• Largest improvement in instruction counts: -3.6% on full builds of externs debug

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

[lqd]

cc @nnethercote

[nnethercote]

So v2 has lots of 0.3% to 0.5% wins, while v3 has lots of 1%-3.5% wins.

[lqd]

We'd like to have up-to-date numbers for this after the recent LTO changes, so I'll reopen this for a new perf run soon.

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 39e3c52 with merge 18256ff35e7885ae108986756552f14a16d240d0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 18256ff35e7885ae108986756552f14a16d240d0 (18256ff35e7885ae108986756552f14a16d240d0)

[rust-timer]

Queued 18256ff35e7885ae108986756552f14a16d240d0 with parent 2efb0cd, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (18256ff35e7885ae108986756552f14a16d240d0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-3.0%, -0.5%]	219
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-4.3%, -0.3%]	182
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-3.0%, -0.5%]	219

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.8%, 4.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.7%, -0.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, 0.7%]	4

Cycles

Results

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-4.6%, -0.7%]	156
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-8.8%, -1.2%]	111
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-4.6%, -0.7%]	156

[lqd]

We should have the data we need, so I'll close this one again.