Make some simple queries no longer cache on disk

[compiler-errors]

I don't think we need to cache queries with really simple local providers, like loading hir and accessing an attr

r? @ghost

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9e023dddda0034f76f60204f94a4311898e46b20 with merge 0dec5653e3ed7d09763c0fd28f3a940beee4d45b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0dec5653e3ed7d09763c0fd28f3a940beee4d45b (0dec5653e3ed7d09763c0fd28f3a940beee4d45b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0dec5653e3ed7d09763c0fd28f3a940beee4d45b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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-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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, 0.6%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-3.0%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

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)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.7%, -2.1%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1

[compiler-errors]

Once again, without codegen_fn_attrs...

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 37f7db8 with merge ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f (ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f (ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ca8d489ef1473f0bdd81d04fe6686ab86322b92f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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-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)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.5%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	18

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.5%, 2.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.2%, -1.6%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1

Cycles

Results

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)	-2.1%	[-2.2%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 656.939s -> 655.574s (-0.21%)

[compiler-errors]

r? compiler

[compiler-errors]

r? compiler

[compiler-errors]

rustbot pls

r? compiler

[cjgillot]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 37f7db8 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 37f7db8 with merge a368898...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing a368898 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a368898): 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)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	17
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	17

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.8%	[2.0%, 4.6%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.8%, -2.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-2.2%, -1.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 656.624s -> 656.048s (-0.09%)