interpret: mark some hot functions inline(always)

[RalfJung]

That seems to recover a good part of the perf impact of #129778.

r? @saethlin

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

[RalfJung]

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0852bf2 with merge a775fd6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a775fd6 (a775fd6a3a5f987df0f3cf711c9ba26b6c010cec)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a775fd6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.3%, -1.9%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.6%)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary -6.9%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.9%	[-8.8%, -3.9%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 755.942s -> 756.905s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 341.35 MiB -> 341.32 MiB (-0.01%)

[RalfJung]

That seems to be a good part of it, at least.

[saethlin]

I would really like to know why PGO+BOLT does the wrong thing here but the amount of perf on the table here isn't worth very much contributor time.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit d104ded has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d104ded with merge 5bce6d4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: saethlin
Pushing 5bce6d4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5bce6d4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-2.3%, -0.4%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 6.0%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.0%	[6.0%, 6.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -5.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.2%	[-5.2%, -5.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.2%	[-5.2%, -5.2%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 758.053s -> 756.954s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 341.34 MiB -> 341.36 MiB (0.01%)