Revert "Rollup merge of #146627 - madsmtm:jemalloc-simplify, r=jdonszelmann"

[Kobzol]

This reverts commit 5dc3c19, reversing
changes made to 11339a0.

Reverts #146627 due to a perf regression.

r? @Zalathar

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
  Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
  • ccd8795

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 961b503 (961b503480f371c50447e4318ff05644154ffef6, parent: 5dbf4069dc98bbbca98dd600a65f50c258fbfd56)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (961b503): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-3.4%, -1.1%]	21
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-2.7%, -0.2%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-3.4%, -1.1%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 7.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	7.3%	[7.3%, 7.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.3%	[7.3%, 7.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 18.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	101.2%	[101.2%, 101.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-3.1%, -2.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	18.2%	[-3.1%, 101.2%]	5

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

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)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 474.258s -> 472.649s (-0.34%)
Artifact size: 388.39 MiB -> 388.64 MiB (0.06%)

[Kobzol]

CC @madsmtm @jdonszelmann If either of you want to approve, it's better to land perf. reverts as soon as possible.

[madsmtm]

Sure! I began investigating it, but we can do this in the meantime

@bors r+

View changes since this review

[madsmtm]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ccd8795 has been approved by madsmtm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ccd8795 with merge 7a72c54...

[madsmtm]

I've put up #148925, should we cancel this one and try to go with that one instead, or should I instead re-apply a fixed version of #146627 after this PR merges?

[Kobzol]

This is already being tested, so I'd let it finish.

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: madsmtm
Pushing 7a72c54 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 2286e5d (parent) -> 7a72c54 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 5 test diffs

5 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 7a72c5459dd58f81b0e1a0e5436d145485889375 --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. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 3415.5s -> 2257.7s (-33.9%)
2. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 4038.1s -> 3034.9s (-24.8%)
3. aarch64-apple: 10048.2s -> 7988.0s (-20.5%)
4. dist-aarch64-apple: 7029.2s -> 8281.6s (+17.8%)
5. dist-apple-various: 5508.4s -> 4737.1s (-14.0%)
6. aarch64-msvc-2: 5503.3s -> 4827.6s (-12.3%)
7. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3: 5643.3s -> 6320.6s (+12.0%)
8. x86_64-gnu: 7097.1s -> 6317.6s (-11.0%)
9. x86_64-gnu-debug: 6703.9s -> 7414.6s (+10.6%)
10. x86_64-msvc-1: 9581.2s -> 8569.2s (-10.6%)

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 (7a72c54): comparison URL.

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 1.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-3.4%, -1.1%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-2.7%, -0.2%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-3.4%, -1.1%]	20

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary 0.6%)

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)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.2%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.605s -> 475.201s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 388.41 MiB -> 388.70 MiB (0.08%)

[jdonszelmann]

Whoops, hehe, didn't expect this one to be that perf sensitive but I guess. Thanks for the quick response mads