Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

threads: add feature flags #10206

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

abrown
Copy link
Contributor

@abrown abrown commented Feb 7, 2025

This adds both the Cargo-level and CLI-level flags for the shared-everything-threads proposal. We may not want to expose this feature just yet, but I need a place to park this since the stack of commits to enable shared-everything threads is getting out of hand. The feedback I'm look for is: what we should be gating with this new Cargo feature?

This adds both the Cargo-level and CLI-level flags for the
shared-everything-threads proposal.
@github-actions github-actions bot added wasmtime:api Related to the API of the `wasmtime` crate itself wasmtime:config Issues related to the configuration of Wasmtime labels Feb 7, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

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.

    Our documentation should be of the following form:

    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.
    
  • If you added a new Config method, or modified an existing one, you
    ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.

    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 (or one
    of its nested structs).

    Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
    configuration. See our docs on fuzzing for more 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.


To modify this label's message, edit the .github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md file.

To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
.github/label-messager.json configuration file.

Learn more.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

What do you think about using the preexisting threads Cargo feature for this? That's mostly avoiding runtime deps of threads/libstd/etc and having that gate both threads and shared-everything-threads seems reasonable to me

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Oh and do directly answer this:

The feedback I'm look for is: what we should be gating with this new Cargo feature?

I wrote up some basic thoughts here but the tl;dr; IMO is "anything that requires a runtime dependency" aka something outside of libcore. In that sense the current threads proposal is gated because it requires mutexes/etc to implement atomic notify/wait. I don't think that shared-everything-threads will require any more than threads, though, but any nontrivial dependency above the core crate should be gated.

(or do you have specific things you're curious about too?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
wasmtime:api Related to the API of the `wasmtime` crate itself wasmtime:config Issues related to the configuration of Wasmtime
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants