chore(ci): drop compile gates already covered by clippy

[luicarus]

Description

Part of #975.

On current master, a ready-for-review PR expands to 16 job executions. Three of those jobs cover compile surfaces that are already exercised by retained Clippy jobs. This PR removes those redundant executions without reducing package, feature, or target coverage.

1. feature-model-cuda: remove the compile leg (2 jobs)

The compile and clippy legs use the same package, feature, release profile, and --all-targets surface:

compile: cargo check  -p <package> --features <feature> --all-targets
clippy:  cargo clippy -p <package> --features <feature> --all-targets -- -D warnings

For the same package / feature / target surface, the retained Clippy invocation exercises the same compilation surface while also running the lints, so the separate compile leg adds no additional coverage.

The gate: compile value and its corresponding include entry are removed together. Removing only the dimension value would leave the include entry unmatched, causing GitHub Actions to append it as a new matrix combination without the expected model, package, and feature bindings.

2. qwen3-cuda-compile: remove the job (1 job)

The two Qwen3 jobs currently cover:

qwen3-cuda-compile:
  cargo check ... -p pegainfer-server --all-targets

qwen3-cuda-clippy:
  cargo clippy ...
    -p pegainfer-server
    -p pegainfer-qwen3
    -p pegainfer-core
    -p pegainfer-kernels
    -p pegainfer-kv-cache
    -p pegainfer-kv-offload
    -p pegainfer-sample
    -p pegainfer-bench
    --all-targets -- -D warnings

The compile job's package set (pegainfer-server) is a subset of the Clippy job's package set, with the same --all-targets surface.

qwen3-cuda-clippy already carries CUDA_PATH, PEGAINFER_CUDA_SM, and PEGAINFER_NVCC_JOBS on its Cargo step, so the CUDA-specific build environment required by the retained command is preserved.

Coverage map

Every surface covered by a removed job remains covered by a retained command:

Removed job	Package / feature / targets	Retained job	Coverage
Qwen3 CUDA compile	pegainfer-server, default features, --all-targets	Qwen3 CUDA Clippy	Same package included in its 8-package set, same --all-targets surface
Gemma 4 CUDA Compile	pegainfer-gemma4, gemma4, --all-targets	Gemma 4 CUDA Clippy	Identical package / feature / target surface
Qwen3.5 CUDA Compile	pegainfer-qwen35, qwen35, --all-targets	Qwen3.5 CUDA Clippy	Identical package / feature / target surface

All other gates are unchanged: CPU Clippy, CPU unit tests, simulated frontend E2E, DCO, attribution, formatting, and locked Cargo metadata.

Expected impact

Ready-for-review job executions:

16 → 13

Repeated setup executions:

Setup step	Before	After
actions/checkout	15	12
dtolnay/rust-toolchain	14	11
mozilla-actions/sccache-action	12	9
apt-get install protobuf-compiler libibverbs-dev	12	9
Jimver/cuda-toolkit	6	3

The direct expected benefit is lower summed runner time and less repeated setup work. The wall-time effect depends on which jobs land on the critical path, so I won't claim an improvement there until it is measured.

Before numbers

These numbers come from the Actions jobs API for the two runs linked in #975.

Here, wall time means the active-job span:

min(job.started_at) → max(job.completed_at)

and summed job runtime is:

Σ(job.completed_at - job.started_at)

over all executed jobs in the run.

Run	Executed jobs	Wall time	Summed job runtime
32950033957	16	6m19s	44m26s
32869418134	16	10m56s	70m15s

The three jobs removed by this PR account for:

Removed job	32950033957	32869418134
Qwen3 CUDA compile	320s	356s
Gemma 4 CUDA Compile	295s	288s
Qwen3.5 CUDA Compile	284s	656s
Total	899s	1300s

Simply subtracting those jobs from the baseline gives projected summed runtimes of approximately:

• 29m27s for run 32950033957 — 33.7% lower;
• 48m35s for run 32869418134 — 30.8% lower.

Those are arithmetic projections, not measured after-results. They assume the retained jobs behave exactly as they did in the baseline runs.

The wall-time effect is less predictable:

• In 32950033957, the longest retained job was Gemma 4 CUDA Clippy at about 6m17s, so removing the compile jobs alone would not necessarily reduce the critical path.
• In 32869418134, the 10m56s critical-path job was Qwen3.5 CUDA Compile, which this PR removes. That run therefore could improve substantially if the retained Qwen3.5 CUDA Clippy job does not exhibit the same slowdown.

Because the second run is an outlier, I don't want to infer a wall-time improvement from it without after-data.

Measurement convention

The issue reports 6m39s and 11m00s for the same two baseline runs. Reading them through the Actions API produces a different span depending on the timestamps used:

Run	Active-job span	run_started_at → updated_at	Difference
32950033957	6m19s	7m39s	1m20s
32869418134	10m56s	11m00s	4s

The whole-run span includes runner allocation before the first job starts and workflow finalization after the last one completes, so it is always the larger of the two — by 1m20s in one run and 4s in the other. That gap is scheduling overhead, not compute, and it varies enough between runs that mixing the two definitions would make a before/after comparison unreliable.

The comparison above therefore uses the active-job span, min(job.started_at) → max(job.completed_at). I'm stating the convention up front so the after-runs are read the same way.

After numbers

Once this PR has completed runs of its own, I'll report the same measurements across multiple ordinary PR runs, with links to the raw Actions results:

• wall time, using both timestamp conventions above;
• summed job runtime;
• per-job setup and Cargo-step duration;
• sccache hit/miss/write-error statistics.

These measurements need to come from completed GitHub Actions runs: runner scheduling and cache behavior are properties of the CI environment and cannot be reproduced meaningfully by a local build.

Follow-up under #975

The fused CPU gate is intentionally not included in this PR. CPU fusion can reduce summed runner time while also changing the workflow critical path, so I'd prefer to evaluate and measure that tradeoff separately rather than mix it with the straightforward CUDA deduplication here.

Out of scope

Left untouched as specified in #975:

• routing direct nvcc compilation through a cache launcher;
• investigating the GitHub Actions cache write errors;
• release CI.

release.yml is unchanged.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update

CI maintenance / performance optimization.

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project (see docs/conventions/coding-style.md).
• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• I have formatted my commits according to Commitizen conventions.
• I have run the local test suite and all tests pass (see CLAUDE.md).

Local verification

This PR only changes .github/workflows/ci.yml; there are no Rust source, manifest, lockfile, or build.rs changes.

Ran locally:

• cargo fmt --all --check — passes (rustc 1.99.0-nightly, matching rust-toolchain.toml).
• cargo metadata --locked --no-deps --format-version 1 — passes.
• Workflow YAML structure checked: 9 job definitions; feature-model-cuda expands to 2 executions; no unmatched matrix include entry remains.

The full ## Tests suite from CLAUDE.md was not run locally because the relevant commands require CUDA/GPU/model-weight dependencies unavailable in this environment. The checklist item is therefore left unchecked; the retained CI jobs will exercise those paths on this PR.

[FeathBow]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. You're on a roll.

Reviewed commit: fedcdccf46

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".