alexcrichton requested pchickey for a review on PR #9606.
alexcrichton opened PR #9606 from alexcrichton:shrink-the-default-guard-region
to bytecodealliance:main
:
This commit follows in the footsteps of SpiderMonkey to reduce the size of the default guard region from 2GiB to 32MiB. SpiderMonkey performance an analysis of some wasm modules and found the largest static offset was 20MiB so 32 is the rounded up version of that.
This will reduce the size of the virtual memory reservation per linear-memory by default. Previously it was 8G due to guards being both before and after linear memory being 2G in size. Now it'll be 4G+64M with before/after guards taken into account. This should in theory make it easier to pack more instances in the pooling allocator for example and overall reduce the virtual memory footprint.
This is not expected to have any major impact on the performance of wasm modules as all bounds checks should still practically be elided. We've been fuzzing differently sized guard regions for quite a long time as well so there should be a low risk of this having any issues specifically connected to a smaller guard region.
<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:
If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
this can be brief.Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.htmlPlease ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->
alexcrichton requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9606.
alexcrichton commented on PR #9606:
For reference this is from discussions with Ryan this week at WasmCon and the SpiderMonkey reference is here
alexcrichton updated PR #9606.
pchickey submitted PR review.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9606:
Label Messager: wasmtime:config
It looks like you are changing Wasmtime's configuration options. Make sure to
complete this check list:
[ ] If you added a new
Config
method, you wrote extensive documentation for
it.<details>
Our documentation should be of the following form:
```text
Short, simple summary sentence.More details. These details can be multiple paragraphs. There should be
information about not just the method, but its parameters and results as
well.Is this method fallible? If so, when can it return an error?
Can this method panic? If so, when does it panic?
Example
Optional example here.
```</details>
[ ] If you added a new
Config
method, or modified an existing one, you
ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.<details>
For example, if you expose a new strategy for allocating the next instance
slot inside the pooling allocator, you should ensure that at least one of our
fuzz targets exercises that new strategy.Often, all that is required of you is to ensure that there is a knob for this
configuration option in [wasmtime_fuzzing::Config
][fuzzing-config] (or one
of its nestedstruct
s).Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
configuration. See [our docs on fuzzing][fuzzing-docs] for more details.</details>
[ ] If you are enabling a configuration option by default, make sure that it
has been fuzzed for at least two weeks before turning it on by default.[fuzzing-config]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/ca0e8d0a1d8cefc0496dba2f77a670571d8fdcab/crates/fuzzing/src/generators.rs#L182-L194
[fuzzing-docs]: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-fuzzing.html
<details>
To modify this label's message, edit the <code>.github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md</code> file.
To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
<code>.github/label-messager.json</code> configuration file.</details>
alexcrichton merged PR #9606.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC