Remove CacheCell and CacheRefCell aliases and directly use Lock and RwLock

[LorrensP-2158466]

View all comments

Some changes from #158845 for benchmarking.

decided to change Mutex to datastructures::sync::Lock.

r? @petrochenkov

[mati865]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[petrochenkov]

Even if there are minor regressions, we can merge this once the concerns about locking in macro scope compression (#158845 (comment)) are resolved.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 798fc4c (798fc4c7778a8edd55282f90fd5f1f886488e775)
Base parent: 656a9da (656a9da186dacaf3bf8f7f7296a825d256cb4ae3)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (798fc4c): 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 rustc-perf
@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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	42
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	42

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 0.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[2.8%, 6.8%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.8%	[-7.3%, -4.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 5.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[0.5%, 2.6%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.6%	[5.6%, 5.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.6%, -3.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-3.6%, 2.6%]	13

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 478.991s -> 480.615s (0.34%)
Artifact size: 403.45 MiB -> 404.22 MiB (0.19%)

[Kobzol]

(The tokio benchmark was added today and might be a bit noisy at the start)

[LorrensP-2158466]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

Still need to address the scope chain compression problem #158845 (comment).
@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[LorrensP-2158466]

r=me after tweaking the comment and squashing commits (and when the perf run completes).

Can't r=you, @rustbot ready.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+
This is a minor perf regression, but it's a pre-requisite to any parallelization in name resolution.

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit ba21a6e has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Zalathar]

Scheduling: Let's run this before a small rollup.

@bors p=5

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job test-aarch64-apple-macos-26-1 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

Important

For more information how to resolve CI failures of this job, visit this link.

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for 9aa41fe failed: CI. Failed job:

• auto - test-aarch64-apple-macos-26-1 (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[Zalathar]

@bors p=0

[petrochenkov]

Panic in set_alloc_error_hook, suspicious but should be irrelevant to this PR.
@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit ba21a6e has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

A failed build status on this PR was cleared due to the approval.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: petrochenkov
Duration: 3h 10m 31s
Pushing 4b6d04e to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 20d35a3 (parent) -> 4b6d04e (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 4b6d04e706108ccfeafe2547fbe857dfe8972bad --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. test-pr-check-1: 23m 17s -> 34m 56s (+50.0%)
2. test-x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3: 1h 12m -> 1h 42m (+41.2%)
3. test-x86_64-msvc-ext1: 1h 43m -> 2h 24m (+39.2%)
4. dist-riscv64-linux-gnu: 1h 8m -> 1h 34m (+38.3%)
5. test-x86_64-msvc-ext2: 1h 22m -> 1h 52m (+36.7%)
6. test-x86_64-gnu: 1h 55m -> 2h 34m (+33.4%)
7. test-aarch64-apple-macos-26-2: 2h 27m -> 1h 38m (-33.2%)
8. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 1h 9m -> 1h 31m (+31.7%)
9. test-x86_64-gnu-aux: 2h 5m -> 2h 43m (+30.6%)
10. test-armhf-gnu: 1h 11m -> 1h 31m (+29.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4b6d04e): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.2%]	39
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.2%]	39

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.6%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.7%	[-5.3%, -4.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 497.229s -> 501.089s (0.78%)
Artifact size: 406.94 MiB -> 406.85 MiB (-0.02%)