refactor: replace InternedString with Cow in IndexPackage #15559
Conversation
0xPoe
changed the title
0xPoe
force-pushed
the
rustin-patch-cow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5fdaca9 to
de4a534
Compare
0xPoe
changed the title
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
I would recommend at least doing some benchmarking using our bench suite. https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/tree/master/benches contains some documentation, and particularly the |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if we could change InternString::from_cow to something like:
impl<'a> From<Cow<'a, str>> for InternedString {
fn from(cs: Cow<'a, str>) -> Self {
let mut cache = interned_storage();
let s = cache.get(cs.as_ref()).copied().unwrap_or_else(|| {
let s = cs.into_owned().leak();
cache.insert(s);
s
});
InternedString { inner: s }
}
}So in other places we can rely on Into<InternedString>.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@weihanglo Do you think it makes sense to replace all instances of InternedString::new with .into() where possible? There are quite a few usages of InternedString::new.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am fine with wherever reasonable. Could also leave them for future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am fine with wherever reasonable. Could also leave them for future
Signed-off-by: 0xPoe <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 0xPoe <[email protected]>
|
I’ve tested this change several times using the resolve_ws/rust benchmark suite. My test env: Model Name: MacBook Pro
Chip: Apple M4 Max
Total Number of Cores: 14 (10 performance and 4 efficiency)
Memory: 36 GBTest result: First round:
Second round:
Third round:
Fourth round:
|
What does this PR try to resolve?
ref #14834
As described in the issue, we want to move IndexPackage into cargo-util-schemas. However, it contains InternedString fields, which we don't want to expose as part of the public API.
This PR replaces InternedString with Cow.
How should we test and review this PR?
It shouldn't change or break any tests.
Additional information
None