early linting: avoid redundant calls to check_id

[fee1-dead]

An attempt to address the regression at #142240 (comment)

r? @oli-obk

cc @nnethercote who might have a better understanding of the performance implications

[fee1-dead]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ac92e87 with merge 73e31b9...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[oli-obk]

Sad. Would need to revert #142305, too then. At this point it may be prudent to remove visit_id entirely as it's a footgun

[fee1-dead]

it might still be possible to keep using visit_id, I just haven't looked into it deeply yet. After removing the redundant calls we can do some perf measurements. If it still is bad then we should revert to previous state.

[fee1-dead]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ae8ca1f with merge 9fe6114...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9fe6114 (9fe61147dc9031465e04140f03586e3d72f36e6c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9fe6114): 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)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	30
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	36
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.2%, 1.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-1.5%, 1.4%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -7.0%)

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)	-7.0%	[-7.0%, -7.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 755.158s -> 754.58s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 372.13 MiB -> 372.08 MiB (-0.01%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r+ yay

[bors]

📌 Commit ae8ca1f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ae8ca1f with merge 75e7cf5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 75e7cf5 to master...

[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 0cbc076 (parent) -> 75e7cf5 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 75e7cf5f85aad82331a38deff24845b63eaf30f3 --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. mingw-check-tidy: 93.3s -> 70.3s (-24.6%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 10591.1s -> 9474.1s (-10.5%)
3. dist-apple-various: 5925.9s -> 6480.9s (9.4%)
4. x86_64-apple-1: 7439.8s -> 6758.9s (-9.2%)
5. dist-aarch64-apple: 5834.0s -> 5412.1s (-7.2%)
6. dist-android: 2656.6s -> 2470.0s (-7.0%)
7. x86_64-msvc-1: 8798.8s -> 8284.4s (-5.8%)
8. dist-loongarch64-linux: 6108.5s -> 5755.7s (-5.8%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3: 6600.3s -> 6897.5s (4.5%)
10. dist-arm-linux-musl: 5272.8s -> 5498.0s (4.3%)

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 (75e7cf5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	29
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	31
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 4.6%)

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)	4.6%	[4.6%, 4.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.5%)

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)	3.5%	[2.5%, 4.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 757.399s -> 756.494s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 372.20 MiB -> 372.15 MiB (-0.01%)