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

Decrease default guard size from 2G to 32M #9606

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

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.

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.
@alexcrichton alexcrichton requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2024 21:14
@alexcrichton alexcrichton requested review from pchickey and removed request for a team November 14, 2024 21:14
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

For reference this is from discussions with Ryan this week at WasmCon and the SpiderMonkey reference is here

@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 Nov 14, 2024
Copy link

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 alexcrichton added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 15, 2024
Merged via the queue into bytecodealliance:main with commit e56ffd7 Nov 15, 2024
40 checks passed
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the shrink-the-default-guard-region branch November 15, 2024 18:18
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