Disable hashing on effective_visibilities

[blyxyas]

Make effective_visibilities no_hash. We were wasting too much time on hashing the FxIndexMap (15 million instructions on tokio just for the hashing) so it was not worth it.

[rustbot]

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
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

[jieyouxu]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 64189bf with merge afc29b9…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

[nnethercote]

Hmm, I am not familiar with the query modifiers like no_hash and eval_always and the documentation isn't very clear, so I'm not comfortable reviewing this. @blyxyas, can you explain how/why this is a valid and good change? Thanks!

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: afc29b9 (afc29b9bbebfe04fc6635a69253e150adb83e511, parent: 0060d5a2a8a86a31f6299311fe64b1d755a91c4f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (afc29b9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	3.0%	[0.2%, 11.0%]	83
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 3.7%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-11.0%, -0.3%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.5%, -0.1%]	36
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[-11.0%, 11.0%]	128

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.9%, secondary -0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[0.7%, 4.2%]	18
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.9%, 2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.4%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[0.7%, 4.2%]	18

Cycles

Results (primary 3.4%, secondary -2.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	6.0%	[2.6%, 10.2%]	40
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.7%, 4.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-7.9%, -2.1%]	13
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-6.2%, -2.0%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[-7.9%, 10.2%]	53

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 466.337s -> 468.665s (0.50%)
Artifact size: 376.97 MiB -> 376.94 MiB (-0.01%)

[nnethercote]

Those perf results are not so good, unfortunately :(