Bump tracing

[clubby789]

Retry of #127316, lets see if things have improved

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[clubby789]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7e4dcf9 with merge ba0cc73...

[clubby789]

@rust-timer build ba0cc73

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ba0cc73): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.8%	[0.4%, 8.3%]	282
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[0.3%, 21.6%]	248
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.8%	[0.4%, 8.3%]	282

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary 3.5%)

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)	2.4%	[0.4%, 6.5%]	161
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[0.6%, 10.8%]	186
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[0.4%, 6.5%]	161

Cycles

Results (primary 3.5%, secondary 5.7%)

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)	3.5%	[1.4%, 12.8%]	226
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.9%	[2.0%, 39.1%]	159
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-3.3%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.5%	[1.4%, 12.8%]	226

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 764.604s -> 797.198s (4.26%)
Artifact size: 330.49 MiB -> 349.44 MiB (5.73%)

[clubby789]

About the same