src/tools/rustc-perf/triage/2024-01-16.md - toolchain/rustc - Git at Google

 # 2024-01-16 Triage Log

 This week had some small regressions that did not warrant further investigation,
 several of which were dismissed as being noise/blips in the data. There were
 also a number of gains. (Don't get exicited about that 20.6% improvement, its an
 measurement artifact from a temporary blip in the PR that immediately preceded
 this week's triage.)

 Triage done by **@pnkfelix**.
 Revision range: [76101eec..f9c2421a](https://perf.rust-lang.org/?start=76101eecbe9aa80753664bbe637ad06d1925f315&end=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&absolute=false&stat=instructions%3Au)

 **Summary**:

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range           | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:---------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 0.7%  | [0.6%, 0.7%]    | 2     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 3.1%  | [0.8%, 4.1%]    | 9     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -1.2% | [-20.6%, -0.2%] | 133   |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.8% | [-7.3%, -0.1%]  | 31    |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -1.2% | [-20.6%, 0.7%]  | 135   |


 3 Regressions, 5 Improvements, 5 Mixed; 3 of them in rollups
 55 artifact comparisons made in total

 #### Regressions

 Rollup of 10 pull requests [#119754](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119754) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ca663b06c5492ac2dde5e53cd11579fa8e4d68bd&end=d6affcf520091fd0f48df1a2b6bfcb9ef48e0f40&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean | range        | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:----:|:------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 2.4% | [2.4%, 2.4%] | 2     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -    | -            | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -    | -            | 0     |

 * The 2 regressing (and secondary) benchmarks are tt-muncher debug {incr-full, full}. Its not transient.
 * I've skimmed over the list of PR's in the rollup. None of them are obvious culprits here. I looked at the ones related to debuginfo (#118903) and to code-coverage (#119033 and #119681), but none of those seem likely to be to blame here
 * Since this only affects a secondary benchmark, and only the instruction count (e.g. not cpu-clock:u nor wall-time for these two benchmarks), I do not think its worth further investigation and I'm going to mark it as triaged.

 Exhaustiveness: use an `Option` instead of allocating fictitious patterns [#119688](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119688) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=a2d9d73e608f1b24eba840c4fd2d68dbe3b65e01&end=0a8923361ec2a37fa341292c029ef7c6d0405d4b&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean | range        | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:----:|:------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 3.8% | [3.6%, 4.1%] | 6     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -    | -            | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -    | -            | 0     |

 * This impacted the 6 variants of match-stress {incr-full,full} x {check,debug,opt}
 * I think the impact on match-stress was probably well-anticipated, and within a reasonable range for a stress-test benchmark.
 * Note that #119688 was a precursor to some further cleanup code (namely to remove the use of a local-arena within exhaustiveness checking).
 * Marking as triaged.

 never patterns: Check bindings wrt never patterns [#119610](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119610) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=bfcc027a751595ba290c554f47907eaa3779f798&end=714b29a17ff5fa727c794bbb60bfd335f8e75d42&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean | range        | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:----:|:------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 0.3% | [0.3%, 0.4%] | 3     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -    | -            | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -    | -            | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | 0.3% | [0.3%, 0.4%] | 3     |

 * This impacted 3 variants of unicode-normalization-0.1.19: debug incr-unchanged and check {incr-unchanged, incr-patched:println}.
 * Interestingly, during two different try runs, those three variants were found to have improved by similar amounts by this PR.
 * there's some weird interaction between that benchmark and the code paths impacted by this PR, and I do not think its worth investing effort in further investigation.
 * marking as triaged.

 #### Improvements

 macro_rules: Add an expansion-local cache to span marker [#119693](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119693) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=76101eecbe9aa80753664bbe637ad06d1925f315&end=0ee9cfd54db7b5f4be35f026588904500c866196&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range           | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:---------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -               | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -               | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -1.4% | [-20.5%, -0.2%] | 80    |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.8% | [-1.9%, -0.3%]  | 16    |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -1.4% | [-20.5%, -0.2%] | 80    |

 * the bitmaps changes (-20.5%, -17.9%, -13.1%) are all artifacts of returning to normal after a blip in the previous PR.

 A more efficient slice comparison implementation for T: !BytewiseEq [#116846](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116846) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ae9d24de80b00b4158d1a29a212a6b02aeda0e75&end=190f4c96116a3b59b7de4881cfec544be0246d84&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.5% | [-0.9%, -0.2%] | 15    |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.6% | [-0.6%, -0.6%] | 1     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -0.5% | [-0.9%, -0.2%] | 15    |

 * it is too bad that work in PR #100124 stalled.

 Remove a large amount of leb128-coded integers [#119791](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119791) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=d73bd3fb3ba312f3e6b5af4d56d1161d37b71620&end=68acb393c5d2cff049b41981e35217a7e630f63a&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 1.1%  | [1.1%, 1.1%]   | 1     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.3% | [-0.3%, -0.2%] | 5     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.3% | [-0.5%, -0.1%] | 12    |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -0.3% | [-0.3%, -0.2%] | 5     |

 * the 1.1% hit is to deep-vector debug full. It may be transient; the history is pretty up-and-down at the time of this PR, and has settled at a lower level than where it was when this PR landed.
 * in any case, the gains elsewhere, especially bootstrap, outweigh the loss to that one secondary benchmark. (Which ... I guess is what the rustc-perf bot now computes as well, since it categorized this as an Improvement rather than Mixed?)

 Exhaustiveness: track overlapping ranges precisely [#119396](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119396) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=bfd799f1a5a86d16e6b8caa2857bcb4aac6e0174&end=174e73a3f6df6f96ab453493796e461164dea94a&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.4% | [-1.7%, -0.2%] | 32    |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -     | -              | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -0.4% | [-1.7%, -0.2%] | 32    |


 Rollup of 6 pull requests [#119889](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119889) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=174e73a3f6df6f96ab453493796e461164dea94a&end=ce1f2ccf5a5ac9343623bd115a05e4151d93af0d&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -1.8% | [-1.9%, -1.7%] | 4     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -4.3% | [-7.4%, -1.3%] | 2     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -1.8% | [-1.9%, -1.7%] | 4     |


 #### Mixed

 Support async recursive calls (as long as they have indirection) [#117703](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117703) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=387e7a5e42ac074e79a14361e82702a229a6aac8&end=dc641039d2b3f5c0894694e4b45f7c3951030685&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 0.2%  | [0.2%, 0.2%]   | 1     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.3% | [-0.4%, -0.3%] | 3     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -     | -              | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -0.3% | [-0.4%, -0.3%] | 3     |

 * this is weird, it looks like an inverse blip occurred on the preceding PR, where tt-muncher check incr-unchanged had a single point with -0.2% instruction-count, and then it preceding to "return to normal" on the succeeding PRs.
 * (Its harder for me to explain away "inverse blips" ...)
 * but at the same time, this does not seem like a significant regression by our usual metrics.
 * marking as triaged.

 Rollup of 9 pull requests [#119767](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119767) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=be00c5a9b89161b7f45ba80340f709e8e41122f9&end=5876c8cdfd3df742c334d6447d44d760c77103b6&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 1.3%  | [0.4%, 2.3%]   | 2     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 0.9%  | [0.5%, 1.2%]   | 2     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.3% | [-0.3%, -0.3%] | 1     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | 1.3%  | [0.4%, 2.3%]   | 2     |

 * primary regressions: syn opt-full regressed by 2.3%, bitmaps check-incr-full by 0.35%. secondary regressions: coercions debug-full by 1.23%, ctfe-stress check-full by 0.51%
 * from the overall history, it seems like syn opt-full returned to "normal" with later PRs that don't necessarily seem like they would have affected syn (e.g. PR #117449). bitmap check-incr-full's trend is likewise downward after this point.
 * marking as triaged

 Add assume into `NonZeroIntX::get` [#119452](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119452) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ce1f2ccf5a5ac9343623bd115a05e4151d93af0d&end=2319be8e265dd19973574eb581d28297baf44b11&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 0.5%  | [0.4%, 0.9%]   | 4     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.7% | [-0.7%, -0.7%] | 1     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -     | -              | 0     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | 0.3%  | [-0.7%, 0.9%]  | 5     |

 * scottmcm writes: "Instructions have a couple red in instruction counts for opt, but that's entirely reasonable for something intended to enable optimizations. Notably, the cycles are green, with no regressions. So I think this is fine."
 * marking as triaged

 Avoid some redundant work in GVN [#119439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119439) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=714b29a17ff5fa727c794bbb60bfd335f8e75d42&end=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 0.8%  | [0.6%, 0.9%]   | 4     |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | -     | -              | 0     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -0.7% | [-1.1%, -0.5%] | 4     |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.4% | [-0.4%, -0.4%] | 1     |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | 0.0%  | [-1.1%, 0.9%]  | 8     |

 * primary regressions are regex-1.5.5 debug-full, opt-incr-patched:Job, incr-full, and exa opt-full.
 * the exa regression looks like a blip. The regex ones were predicted during a try run for the PR. I assume they were deemed acceptable as they are offset improvements elsewhere (or dismissed as noise?)
 * marking as triaged.

 Sandwich MIR optimizations between DSE. [#119672](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119672) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&end=fa0dc208d0a34027c1d3cca7d47975d8238bcfde&stat=instructions:u)

 | (instructions:u)                   | mean  | range          | count |
 |:----------------------------------:|:-----:|:--------------:|:-----:|
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary)    | 0.7%  | [0.2%, 1.4%]   | 14    |
 | Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary)  | 0.5%  | [0.2%, 2.7%]   | 14    |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary)   | -1.0% | [-2.2%, -0.2%] | 31    |
 | Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) | -0.9% | [-2.2%, -0.2%] | 10    |
 | All ❌✅ (primary)                 | -0.4% | [-2.2%, 1.4%]  | 45    |

 * already marked as triaged by @lqd with the comment "As seen in the previous runs: some nice wins on bigger benchmarks, and overall gains outweigh the few losses."
	# 2024-01-16 Triage Log

	This week had some small regressions that did not warrant further investigation,
	several of which were dismissed as being noise/blips in the data. There were
	also a number of gains. (Don't get exicited about that 20.6% improvement, its an
	measurement artifact from a temporary blip in the PR that immediately preceded
	this week's triage.)

	Triage done by @pnkfelix.
	Revision range: [76101eec..f9c2421a](https://perf.rust-lang.org/?start=76101eecbe9aa80753664bbe637ad06d1925f315&end=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&absolute=false&stat=instructions%3Au)

	Summary:

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:---------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 0.7% \| [0.6%, 0.7%] \| 2 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 3.1% \| [0.8%, 4.1%] \| 9 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -1.2% \| [-20.6%, -0.2%] \| 133 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.8% \| [-7.3%, -0.1%] \| 31 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -1.2% \| [-20.6%, 0.7%] \| 135 \|


	3 Regressions, 5 Improvements, 5 Mixed; 3 of them in rollups
	55 artifact comparisons made in total

	#### Regressions

	Rollup of 10 pull requests [#119754](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119754) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ca663b06c5492ac2dde5e53cd11579fa8e4d68bd&end=d6affcf520091fd0f48df1a2b6bfcb9ef48e0f40&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:----:\|:------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 2.4% \| [2.4%, 2.4%] \| 2 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|

	* The 2 regressing (and secondary) benchmarks are tt-muncher debug {incr-full, full}. Its not transient.
	* I've skimmed over the list of PR's in the rollup. None of them are obvious culprits here. I looked at the ones related to debuginfo (#118903) and to code-coverage (#119033 and #119681), but none of those seem likely to be to blame here
	* Since this only affects a secondary benchmark, and only the instruction count (e.g. not cpu-clock:u nor wall-time for these two benchmarks), I do not think its worth further investigation and I'm going to mark it as triaged.

	Exhaustiveness: use an `Option` instead of allocating fictitious patterns [#119688](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119688) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=a2d9d73e608f1b24eba840c4fd2d68dbe3b65e01&end=0a8923361ec2a37fa341292c029ef7c6d0405d4b&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:----:\|:------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 3.8% \| [3.6%, 4.1%] \| 6 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|

	* This impacted the 6 variants of match-stress {incr-full,full} x {check,debug,opt}
	* I think the impact on match-stress was probably well-anticipated, and within a reasonable range for a stress-test benchmark.
	* Note that #119688 was a precursor to some further cleanup code (namely to remove the use of a local-arena within exhaustiveness checking).
	* Marking as triaged.

	never patterns: Check bindings wrt never patterns [#119610](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119610) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=bfcc027a751595ba290c554f47907eaa3779f798&end=714b29a17ff5fa727c794bbb60bfd335f8e75d42&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:----:\|:------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 0.3% \| [0.3%, 0.4%] \| 3 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| 0.3% \| [0.3%, 0.4%] \| 3 \|

	* This impacted 3 variants of unicode-normalization-0.1.19: debug incr-unchanged and check {incr-unchanged, incr-patched:println}.
	* Interestingly, during two different try runs, those three variants were found to have improved by similar amounts by this PR.
	* there's some weird interaction between that benchmark and the code paths impacted by this PR, and I do not think its worth investing effort in further investigation.
	* marking as triaged.

	#### Improvements

	macro_rules: Add an expansion-local cache to span marker [#119693](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119693) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=76101eecbe9aa80753664bbe637ad06d1925f315&end=0ee9cfd54db7b5f4be35f026588904500c866196&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:---------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -1.4% \| [-20.5%, -0.2%] \| 80 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.8% \| [-1.9%, -0.3%] \| 16 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -1.4% \| [-20.5%, -0.2%] \| 80 \|

	* the bitmaps changes (-20.5%, -17.9%, -13.1%) are all artifacts of returning to normal after a blip in the previous PR.

	A more efficient slice comparison implementation for T: !BytewiseEq [#116846](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116846) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ae9d24de80b00b4158d1a29a212a6b02aeda0e75&end=190f4c96116a3b59b7de4881cfec544be0246d84&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.5% \| [-0.9%, -0.2%] \| 15 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.6% \| [-0.6%, -0.6%] \| 1 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -0.5% \| [-0.9%, -0.2%] \| 15 \|

	* it is too bad that work in PR #100124 stalled.

	Remove a large amount of leb128-coded integers [#119791](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119791) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=d73bd3fb3ba312f3e6b5af4d56d1161d37b71620&end=68acb393c5d2cff049b41981e35217a7e630f63a&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 1.1% \| [1.1%, 1.1%] \| 1 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.3%, -0.2%] \| 5 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.5%, -0.1%] \| 12 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.3%, -0.2%] \| 5 \|

	* the 1.1% hit is to deep-vector debug full. It may be transient; the history is pretty up-and-down at the time of this PR, and has settled at a lower level than where it was when this PR landed.
	* in any case, the gains elsewhere, especially bootstrap, outweigh the loss to that one secondary benchmark. (Which ... I guess is what the rustc-perf bot now computes as well, since it categorized this as an Improvement rather than Mixed?)

	Exhaustiveness: track overlapping ranges precisely [#119396](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119396) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=bfd799f1a5a86d16e6b8caa2857bcb4aac6e0174&end=174e73a3f6df6f96ab453493796e461164dea94a&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.4% \| [-1.7%, -0.2%] \| 32 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -0.4% \| [-1.7%, -0.2%] \| 32 \|


	Rollup of 6 pull requests [#119889](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119889) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=174e73a3f6df6f96ab453493796e461164dea94a&end=ce1f2ccf5a5ac9343623bd115a05e4151d93af0d&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -1.8% \| [-1.9%, -1.7%] \| 4 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -4.3% \| [-7.4%, -1.3%] \| 2 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -1.8% \| [-1.9%, -1.7%] \| 4 \|


	#### Mixed

	Support async recursive calls (as long as they have indirection) [#117703](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117703) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=387e7a5e42ac074e79a14361e82702a229a6aac8&end=dc641039d2b3f5c0894694e4b45f7c3951030685&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 0.2% \| [0.2%, 0.2%] \| 1 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.4%, -0.3%] \| 3 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.4%, -0.3%] \| 3 \|

	* this is weird, it looks like an inverse blip occurred on the preceding PR, where tt-muncher check incr-unchanged had a single point with -0.2% instruction-count, and then it preceding to "return to normal" on the succeeding PRs.
	* (Its harder for me to explain away "inverse blips" ...)
	* but at the same time, this does not seem like a significant regression by our usual metrics.
	* marking as triaged.

	Rollup of 9 pull requests [#119767](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119767) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=be00c5a9b89161b7f45ba80340f709e8e41122f9&end=5876c8cdfd3df742c334d6447d44d760c77103b6&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 1.3% \| [0.4%, 2.3%] \| 2 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 0.9% \| [0.5%, 1.2%] \| 2 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.3% \| [-0.3%, -0.3%] \| 1 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| 1.3% \| [0.4%, 2.3%] \| 2 \|

	* primary regressions: syn opt-full regressed by 2.3%, bitmaps check-incr-full by 0.35%. secondary regressions: coercions debug-full by 1.23%, ctfe-stress check-full by 0.51%
	* from the overall history, it seems like syn opt-full returned to "normal" with later PRs that don't necessarily seem like they would have affected syn (e.g. PR #117449). bitmap check-incr-full's trend is likewise downward after this point.
	* marking as triaged

	Add assume into `NonZeroIntX::get` [#119452](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119452) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ce1f2ccf5a5ac9343623bd115a05e4151d93af0d&end=2319be8e265dd19973574eb581d28297baf44b11&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 0.5% \| [0.4%, 0.9%] \| 4 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.7% \| [-0.7%, -0.7%] \| 1 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| 0.3% \| [-0.7%, 0.9%] \| 5 \|

	* scottmcm writes: "Instructions have a couple red in instruction counts for opt, but that's entirely reasonable for something intended to enable optimizations. Notably, the cycles are green, with no regressions. So I think this is fine."
	* marking as triaged

	Avoid some redundant work in GVN [#119439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119439) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=714b29a17ff5fa727c794bbb60bfd335f8e75d42&end=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 0.8% \| [0.6%, 0.9%] \| 4 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| - \| - \| 0 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -0.7% \| [-1.1%, -0.5%] \| 4 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.4% \| [-0.4%, -0.4%] \| 1 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| 0.0% \| [-1.1%, 0.9%] \| 8 \|

	* primary regressions are regex-1.5.5 debug-full, opt-incr-patched:Job, incr-full, and exa opt-full.
	* the exa regression looks like a blip. The regex ones were predicted during a try run for the PR. I assume they were deemed acceptable as they are offset improvements elsewhere (or dismissed as noise?)
	* marking as triaged.

	Sandwich MIR optimizations between DSE. [#119672](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119672) [(Comparison Link)](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=f9c2421a2a6e34f3756900dd7d600704c08bfccb&end=fa0dc208d0a34027c1d3cca7d47975d8238bcfde&stat=instructions:u)

	\| (instructions:u) \| mean \| range \| count \|
	\|:----------------------------------:\|:-----:\|:--------------:\|:-----:\|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (primary) \| 0.7% \| [0.2%, 1.4%] \| 14 \|
	\| Regressions ❌ <br /> (secondary) \| 0.5% \| [0.2%, 2.7%] \| 14 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (primary) \| -1.0% \| [-2.2%, -0.2%] \| 31 \|
	\| Improvements ✅ <br /> (secondary) \| -0.9% \| [-2.2%, -0.2%] \| 10 \|
	\| All ❌✅ (primary) \| -0.4% \| [-2.2%, 1.4%] \| 45 \|

	* already marked as triaged by @lqd with the comment "As seen in the previous runs: some nice wins on bigger benchmarks, and overall gains outweigh the few losses."