github-actions[bot] commented on issue #3319:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @fitzgen, @kubkon, @peterhuene
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing", "wasi", "wasmtime:api", "wasmtime:c-api"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- fitzgen: fuzzing
- kubkon: wasi
- peterhuene: wasmtime:api, wasmtime:c-api
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
alexcrichton commented on issue #3319:
To show an idea of the numbers I'm looking at, here's some information. I've got a C program that shows the following timings on various wasmtime versions. Timings are shown with using
wasm.h
andwasmtime.h
. Times are all in nanoseconds.What's being benchmarked:
nop
host calls a wasm function that does nothing
version wasm.h
wasmtime.h
0.26.1 45 0.27.0 104 0.28.0 115 113 0.29.0 117 117 this PR 43 51 i64
host calls a wasm function. Wasm function calls a host function returning i64. Wasm then returns that i64.
version wasm.h
wasmtime.h
0.26.1 181 0.27.0 247 0.28.0 258 240 0.29.0 258 245 this PR 130 104 many
host calls a wasm function. Wasm function calls a host function with 5 i32 params and one i32 return. Wasm discards result and returns.
version wasm.h
wasmtime.h
0.26.1 223 0.27.0 275 0.28.0 295 258 0.29.0 284 261 this PR 173 138
This is all a far cry away from what Rust can do though, so while this PR certainly improves the state of affairs Rust far outstrips it. Rust has the option of using "typed" and "untyped" functions, effectively using
Func
orTypedFunc
to call wasm functions orFunc::wrap
/Func::new
to define host functions. The table below shows timings (in nanoseconds) of calling the functions in a typed/untyped fashion:when imports are defined with
Func::wrap
func typed untyped nop 20 34 i64 21 41 many 23 37 when imports are defined with
Func::new
func typed untyped i64 43 62 many 85 100 The basic summary here is that when we have "typed" versions of everything basically any combination of arguments/returns is roughly 20ns of call-time overhead. That's the minimum threshold for calling a wasm function. Once "untyped" things are used then there starts to be per-argument and per-result overhead. This creeps up in both calling wasm functions and calling host functions, and can be seen how "many" is slower than "i64" which is slower than "nop". Finally the C API imposes about a 40ns blanket overhead on top of the wasmtime "untyped" Rust versions, mostly because
wasmtime_val_t
needs to be converted toVal
and back.Basically at this point I think that the "untyped" variants, which C currently is forced to use, are as optimal as they're gonna get. There's still inherent overhead with translation between
wasmtime_val_t
andVal
, but at some point that can only be but so optimal. I think the only way forward to improve C bindings is to somehow get a "typed" variant in there which opens up opportunities to remove type translations and type checks entirely.
alexcrichton commented on issue #3319:
I'll note that I think we still want this even in the face of https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/3345. I personally like the idea of taking
&mut [Val]
instead of returningBox<[Val]>
forFunc::call
, and otherwise all the optimizations here are internal implementation details we can fiddle with over time.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC