rustdoc: speed up processing of cross-crate fns to fix a perf regression

[fmease]

• The first commit doesn't affect perf but get's rid of a .clone() and a bunch of lines of code. I can drop it if you'd like me to
• The second commit, “reduce the amount of asyncness query executions”, addresses the perf regression introduced in rustdoc: correctly render the return type of cross-crate async fns #116084

r? @ghost

[fmease]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2b7f06f with merge 935f41f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 935f41f (935f41f14a0079c643ac4c4c0a41b48460ad983f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (935f41f): 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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	9
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.2%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	9

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 632.103s -> 631.156s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 317.29 MiB -> 317.35 MiB (0.02%)

[fmease]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d08ad3f with merge 67eb8cd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 67eb8cd (67eb8cd966a5559a4bcb436b01c64ba15f40a14f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (67eb8cd): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no 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.

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

Instruction count

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

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)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.4%, -0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.7%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.4%, 0.7%]	3

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 631.332s -> 632.23s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 317.36 MiB -> 317.36 MiB (-0.00%)

[fmease]

Okay, for the last time hopefully ^^:
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1f2ade0 with merge ccf59a5...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ccf59a5 (ccf59a5bbe1789ff9c29cf58592d9bb77f810b30)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ccf59a5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.3%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	12

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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[1.8%, 5.6%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 630.734s -> 631.633s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 317.40 MiB -> 317.31 MiB (-0.03%)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

[fmease]

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Nice work, thanks!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 841bff2 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 841bff2 with merge 5282e5e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 5282e5e to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5282e5e): 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%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.3%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	6

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%	[1.8%, 3.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-4.7%, -4.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-4.7%, -4.2%]	2

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)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 630.624s -> 630.884s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 317.31 MiB -> 317.43 MiB (0.04%)