Add meeting notes for 2022-06-13 Cranelift meeting (#4263)
Feel free to add suggestions / amend wherever is needed.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -17,4 +17,60 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
### Attendees
|
### Attendees
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- abrown
|
||||||
|
- akirilov
|
||||||
|
- avanhatt
|
||||||
|
- bjorn3
|
||||||
|
- bnjbvr
|
||||||
|
- cfallin
|
||||||
|
- fitzgen
|
||||||
|
- jlbirch
|
||||||
|
- sparker-arm
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Notes
|
### Notes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Agenda item:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- bnjbvr: who owns the cranelift-jit-demo repo? is it collective responsibility? meta
|
||||||
|
question: how do we decide that in general?
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: meta question, probably a bytecode alliance thingy, RFC to discuss.
|
||||||
|
For this particular repo, would github's CODEOWNERS work?
|
||||||
|
- bnjbvr: explains how CODEOWNERS works. Not a solution for merge right. Github
|
||||||
|
has different allowance access for individuals, so could give merge rights to
|
||||||
|
a specific individual.
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: either open an RFC, or discuss this at next wasmtime meeting
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Updates:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- sparker-arm: aarch64 vector work, benchmarking, moving along well, no PR opened yet
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: worked with egraph, subsumes GVN now, LICM soon. Question is how
|
||||||
|
does the rewrite system look like? Now that something works, write up an RFC
|
||||||
|
and see what people think.
|
||||||
|
- avanhatt: lots of verification updates, half way reviewing egraph PR
|
||||||
|
- bnjbvr: work paused the last two weeks on incremental cache, back to it this week
|
||||||
|
- akirilov: PAC (pointer authentication) work in fiber has been merged, CI uses PAC now, RFC + patch to
|
||||||
|
be updated soon
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: that's on linux aarch64, how far are we from enabling for mac
|
||||||
|
m1?
|
||||||
|
- akirilov: codegen changes was easy, unwinding harder, not sure about
|
||||||
|
the complexity for mac m1.
|
||||||
|
- bjorn3: mac m1's ABI is slightly different from linux aarch64's one
|
||||||
|
- jlbirch: talked about security concerns with Alex re: sightglass /
|
||||||
|
benchmarking.
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: how will this work? bot? manual trigger?
|
||||||
|
- jlbirch: anyone with sufficient permissions can comment/open issue to run
|
||||||
|
a workflow run (repository dispatch event), private repo will run the
|
||||||
|
PRs, do the testing and send the results back to the PR/issue. This will
|
||||||
|
be running on private machines (linux x64, linux aarch64).
|
||||||
|
- sparker-arm: limit egraph optimizations, how does it work?
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: fuel mechanism to limit # (number of) rules of application, metric on
|
||||||
|
memory usage (# nodes, classes), hard cap this to some multiple of #
|
||||||
|
cranelift input nodes.
|
||||||
|
- sparker-arm: (*notetaker missed that question*)
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: no rewrites at all at the moment, just hash-const. Turn up knob to
|
||||||
|
get several optimization rounds.
|
||||||
|
- avanhatt: would we do inter-procedural analysis in the future? ie allow
|
||||||
|
rules to rewrite across function boundaries somehow?
|
||||||
|
- cfallin: prob not. Could blow up memory/time, so we'd need to explore.
|
||||||
|
We'd do that only if we inlined that callsite already (so not across
|
||||||
|
function boundaries)
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user