initialize Predicate and Ty interners with higher capacity

[the8472]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @michaelwoerister

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[the8472]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Expected outcome: faster check builds, possible regression in max-rss by a fixed amount per rustc invocation (not code-dependent)

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 98a2032 with merge 9869d54de4acbf66ee1cc59bfcc173c0be8993c3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9869d54de4acbf66ee1cc59bfcc173c0be8993c3 (9869d54de4acbf66ee1cc59bfcc173c0be8993c3)

[rust-timer]

Queued 9869d54de4acbf66ee1cc59bfcc173c0be8993c3 with parent d608229, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9869d54de4acbf66ee1cc59bfcc173c0be8993c3): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant improvements 🎉 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.4% on full builds of regression-31157)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

[the8472]

max-rss impact is bigger than expected. page faults too.
I'll try a more aggressive resizing strategy instead of pre-allocation. 2-3% of cpu cycles when checking core are spent on resizing those hash tables.

[the8472]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1cbfe5d7020401d9dfa6c17e32124748d8d951a6 with merge e205bcd83c263da56a7592bb671f1327d1369bed...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[the8472]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1c294f1 with merge 6c099d0e977ff048ef53e45db7b43c1807268134...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 6c099d0e977ff048ef53e45db7b43c1807268134 (6c099d0e977ff048ef53e45db7b43c1807268134)

[rust-timer]

Queued 6c099d0e977ff048ef53e45db7b43c1807268134 with parent b416e38, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6c099d0e977ff048ef53e45db7b43c1807268134): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.5% on full builds of coercions)
• Very large regression in instruction counts (up to 5.3% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression