Closed the8472 closed 1 week ago
r? @jhpratt
rustbot has assigned @jhpratt. They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.
Use r?
to explicitly pick a reviewer
The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-17
failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)
Some changes occurred in run-make tests.
cc @jieyouxu
Do you know if there's a reason that it's always calculated in nanoseconds? Being most familiar with criterion
(as are many others), I suspect that displaying ms, µs, ns, and ps as appropriate is reasonable.
Switching units when doing a before/after comparison would makes thing more difficult to eyeball.
@bors r+
:pushpin: Commit 2a7c42f93c2e3e3c07a8cae6453e4c7626e83b51 has been approved by jhpratt
It is now in the queue for this repository.
:hourglass: Testing commit 2a7c42f93c2e3e3c07a8cae6453e4c7626e83b51 with merge e93f34210120d1fc6a0195d527eee828a36e57b1...
:sunny: Test successful - checks-actions Approved by: jhpratt Pushing e93f34210120d1fc6a0195d527eee828a36e57b1 to master...
Finished benchmarking commit (e93f34210120d1fc6a0195d527eee828a36e57b1): comparison URL.
@rustbot label: -perf-regression
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
Bootstrap: 674.951s -> 674.435s (-0.08%) Artifact size: 315.92 MiB -> 315.80 MiB (-0.04%)
With modern CPUs running at more than one cycle per nanosecond the current precision is insufficient to resolve differences worth several cycles per iteration.
Granted, walltime benchmarks often are noisy but occasionally, especially when no allocations are involved, the difference really is just a few cycles.
example results when benchmarking 1-4 serialized ADD instructions and an empty bench body