[WIP] Test performance of running MIR inliner on inline(always) function calls in optimized incremental build

[vlad20012]

Currently (#91743, #109247) MIR inliner is enabled only in non-incremental optimized builds because in incremental builds it significantly hurts compilation times. In this PR I'd like to perform several performance tests with different MIR inliner setups and try to find such a setup that improves compilation times even in incremental builds.

r? @ghost

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 63dcb19 with merge 2ac93540d856f9637f3654946eaacf6913e11a7f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2ac93540d856f9637f3654946eaacf6913e11a7f (2ac93540d856f9637f3654946eaacf6913e11a7f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2ac93540d856f9637f3654946eaacf6913e11a7f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.3%, 4.8%]	24
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.3%, 3.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.6%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-1.6%, 4.8%]	26

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)	2.4%	[1.1%, 5.1%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.7%, 2.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-3.7%, 5.1%]	9

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)	2.0%	[1.2%, 4.6%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.0%, 3.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-1.5%, 4.6%]	11

Binary size

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)	2.1%	[0.0%, 13.8%]	37
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.6%, 1.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[0.0%, 13.8%]	37

Bootstrap: 643.639s -> 643.573s (-0.01%)

[Dylan-DPC]

@vlad20012 any updates on this?

[Dylan-DPC]

Closing this as inactive. Feel free to reöpen this pr or create a new pr if you get the time to work on this. Thanks