Fix performance regression introduced in #142531 by excluding Storage{Live,Dead} from CGU size estimation

[ohadravid]

Fix performance regression introduced in #142531 (rust-timer comment) by excluding Storage{Live,Dead} from CGU size estimation.

Also, avoid unneeded work for storage removal in non-opt builds in CopyProp and GVN
by allocating local sets for the storage accounting only when tcx.sess.emit_lifetime_markers().

r? saethlin

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[ohadravid]

Before, Replacer used unified to check which locals require storage removal - so this is fine
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142531/changes#diff-0004c9822ecc282c9d6f6bcec22d1b50d49c6165e8093c1dbd2607086278dc19L96

View changes since the review

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 48af6e0 (48af6e0fab57d8f8b2679fe3401c5b490589dad7, parent: b2f1ccf524a3a4cf9c34545167cc23b659cf1cbd)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (48af6e0): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.2%, secondary -1.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.2%	[3.0%, 5.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-4.2%, -4.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.2%	[3.0%, 5.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary 6.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.2%	[3.8%, 8.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 492.524s -> 492.577s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 394.41 MiB -> 394.45 MiB (0.01%)

[ohadravid]

(I probably won't be able to do this, right @Kobzol ?)

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

@ohadravid: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9ab524a (9ab524a53632bd338dd70682bc997e2503f70f8a, parent: ec2d669db8e5ca2cb1604c69a831ef244ebd9aa9)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9ab524a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[0.8%, 4.6%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.1%	[-14.1%, -0.2%]	9
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-9.1%, -1.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-14.1%, 4.6%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.7%, secondary -1.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.1%, 2.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[4.6%, 4.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-4.6%, -1.0%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-4.3%, -2.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-4.6%, 2.9%]	11

Cycles

Results (primary -3.4%, secondary -4.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.8%	[2.2%, 5.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-8.9%	[-12.4%, -3.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-9.8%, -1.6%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.4%	[-12.4%, 5.6%]	7

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 2.0%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.8%, -0.1%]	19
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-3.8%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.8%, 2.0%]	30

Bootstrap: 490.129s -> 492.074s (0.40%)
Artifact size: 394.32 MiB -> 394.29 MiB (-0.01%)

[saethlin]

Can you update the PR description to include the second commit as well? Then r=me. It's up to you if you want to include the initial optimization as well, I think it makes logical sense and doesn't introduce too much complexity so it would be okay to include it. Even though it doesn't seem very impactful.

[ohadravid]

@saethlin done 🙏