9ac7d01288
This commit is intended to do almost everything necessary for processing the alias section of module linking. Most of this is internal refactoring, the highlights being: * Type contents are now stored separately from a `wasmtime_env::Module`. Given that modules can freely alias types and have them used all over the place, it seemed best to have one canonical location to type storage which everywhere else points to (with indices). A new `TypeTables` structure is produced during compilation which is shared amongst all member modules in a wasm blob. * Instantiation is heavily refactored to account for module linking. The main gotcha here is that imports are now listed as "initializers". We have a sort of pseudo-bytecode-interpreter which interprets the initialization of a module. This is more complicated than just matching imports at this point because in the module linking proposal the module, alias, import, and instance sections may all be interleaved. This means that imports aren't guaranteed to show up at the beginning of the address space for modules/instances. Otherwise most of the changes here largely fell out from these two design points. Aliases are recorded as initializers in this scheme. Copying around type information and/or just knowing type information during compilation is also pretty easy since everything is just a pointer into a `TypeTables` and we don't have to actually copy any types themselves. Lots of various refactorings were necessary to accomodate these changes. Tests are hoped to cover a breadth of functionality here, but not necessarily a depth. There's still one more piece of the module linking proposal missing which is exporting instances/modules, which will come in a future PR. It's also worth nothing that there's one large TODO which isn't implemented in this change that I plan on opening an issue for. With module linking when a set of modules comes back from compilation each modules has all the trampolines for the entire set of modules. This is quite a lot of duplicate trampolines across module-linking modules. We'll want to refactor this at some point to instead have only one set of trampolines per set of module linking modules and have them shared from there. I figured it was best to separate out this change, however, since it's purely related to resource usage, and doesn't impact non-module-linking modules at all. cc #2094
Lightbeam
Lightbeam is an optimising one-pass streaming compiler for WebAssembly, intended for use in Wasmtime.
Quality of output
Already - with a very small number of relatively simple optimisation rules - Lightbeam produces surprisingly high-quality output considering how restricted it is. It even produces better code than Cranelift, Firefox or both for some workloads. Here's a very simple example, this recursive fibonacci function in Rust:
fn fib(n: i32) -> i32 {
if n == 0 || n == 1 {
1
} else {
fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2)
}
}
When compiled with optimisations enabled, rustc will produce the following WebAssembly:
(module
(func $fib (param $p0 i32) (result i32)
(local $l1 i32)
(set_local $l1
(i32.const 1))
(block $B0
(br_if $B0
(i32.lt_u
(get_local $p0)
(i32.const 2)))
(set_local $l1
(i32.const 1))
(loop $L1
(set_local $l1
(i32.add
(call $fib
(i32.add
(get_local $p0)
(i32.const -1)))
(get_local $l1)))
(br_if $L1
(i32.gt_u
(tee_local $p0
(i32.add
(get_local $p0)
(i32.const -2)))
(i32.const 1)))))
(get_local $l1)))
Firefox's optimising compiler produces the following assembly (labels cleaned up somewhat):
fib:
sub rsp, 0x18
cmp qword ptr [r14 + 0x28], rsp
jae stack_overflow
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0xc], edi
cmp edi, 2
jae .Lelse
mov eax, 1
mov dword ptr [rsp + 8], eax
jmp .Lreturn
.Lelse:
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0xc], edi
mov eax, 1
mov dword ptr [rsp + 8], eax
.Lloop:
mov edi, dword ptr [rsp + 0xc]
add edi, -1
call 0
mov ecx, dword ptr [rsp + 8]
add ecx, eax
mov dword ptr [rsp + 8], ecx
mov ecx, dword ptr [rsp + 0xc]
add ecx, -2
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0xc], ecx
cmp ecx, 1
ja .Lloop
.Lreturn:
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 8]
nop
add rsp, 0x18
ret
Cranelift with optimisations enabled produces similar:
fib:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
sub rsp, 0x20
mov qword ptr [rsp + 0x10], rdi
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c], esi
mov eax, 1
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0x18], eax
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c]
cmp eax, 2
jb .Lreturn
movabs rax, 0
mov qword ptr [rsp + 8], rax
.Lloop:
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c]
add eax, -1
mov rcx, qword ptr [rsp + 8]
mov rdx, qword ptr [rsp + 0x10]
mov rdi, rdx
mov esi, eax
call rcx
mov ecx, dword ptr [rsp + 0x18]
add eax, ecx
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0x18], eax
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c]
add eax, -2
mov dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c], eax
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 0x1c]
cmp eax, 1
ja .Lloop
.Lreturn:
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp + 0x18]
add rsp, 0x20
pop rbp
ret
Whereas Lightbeam produces smaller code with far fewer memory accesses than both (and fewer blocks than Firefox's output):
fib:
cmp esi, 2
mov eax, 1
jb .Lreturn
mov eax, 1
.Lloop:
mov rcx, rsi
add ecx, 0xffffffff
push rsi
push rax
push rax
mov rsi, rcx
call fib
add eax, [rsp + 8]
mov rcx, [rsp + 0x10]
add ecx, 0xfffffffe
cmp ecx, 1
mov rsi, rcx
lea rsp, [rsp + 0x18]
ja .Lloop
.Lreturn:
ret
Now obviously I'm not advocating for replacing Firefox's optimising compiler with Lightbeam since the latter can only really produce better code when receiving optimised WebAssembly (and so debug-mode or hand-written WebAssembly may produce much worse output). However, this shows that even with the restrictions of a streaming compiler it's absolutely possible to produce high-quality assembly output. For the assembly above, the Lightbeam output runs within 15% of native speed. This is paramount for one of Lightbeam's intended usecases for real-time systems that want good runtime performance but cannot tolerate compiler bombs.
Specification compliance
Lightbeam passes 100% of the specification test suite, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% specification-compliant. Hopefully as we run a fuzzer against it we can find any issues and get Lightbeam to a state where it can be used in production.
Getting involved
You can file issues in the Wasmtime issue tracker. If you want to get involved jump into the Bytecode Alliance Zulip and someone can direct you to the right place. I wish I could say "the most useful thing you can do is play with it and open issues where you find problems" but until it passes the spec suite that won't be very helpful.