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

Enable default features for wasmtime #366

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

Conversation

rahulchaphalkar
Copy link

The default-features=false is not present in wasmtime v9.0.3 c-api ( LINK ) , but it was still present in Cargo.toml in this repo (bazel/cargo/wasmtime/Cargo.toml)
This PR removes that i.e. enables default features for wasmtime.
This required a cargo raze --generate-lockfile and other associated changes (like removing dups from generated build files).
Previous discussion for this is here #313

@rahulchaphalkar
Copy link
Author

@PiotrSikora Any issue with enabling this? After enabling default features, a second PR will enable us to support VTune for wasmtime ( a small change in wasmtime.cc in this repo) which in turn will enable wasm code profiling with VTune for Envoy.

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member

  1. At the very least, you need to split this into 2 PRs and separate update of dependencies from enabling default features, otherwise this is unreviewable.
  2. What's the justification for enabling default features? It enables 6 features and I don't think all of them should be enabled.

@rahulchaphalkar
Copy link
Author

  1. What's the justification for enabling default features?

I can just enable one feature, 'vtune' instead of all default features. I just assumed Cargo.toml here is following wasmtime/crates/c-api/Cargo.toml in wasmtime repo, so followed the changes there.

  1. split this into 2 PRs

If i understand this correctly, I can have 1st PR where I just update deps with cargo raze --generate-lockfile, fix the dup deps issue. And in 2nd PR, update with feature vtune, fix any additional dep issues that might arise from it after rerunning cargo raze --generate-lockfile.

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member

I can just enable one feature, 'vtune' instead of all default features.

vtune is not c-api feature, so it wouldn't be enabled with this change anyway, would it?

I just assumed Cargo.toml here is following wasmtime/crates/c-api/Cargo.toml in wasmtime repo, so followed the changes there.

That was the case, but not all default features make sense in context of Proxy-Wasm C++ Host.

If i understand this correctly, I can have 1st PR where I just update deps with cargo raze --generate-lockfile, fix the dup deps issue. And in 2nd PR, update with feature vtune, fix any additional dep issues that might arise from it after rerunning cargo raze --generate-lockfile.

Correct. Ideally, you could update Wasmtime to the latest version in the process.

@rahulchaphalkar
Copy link
Author

vtune is not c-api feature

Right, I was planning on enabling it for the wasmtime dependency in c-api, similar to how cranelift is enabled (i would add back default features = false -

wasmtime = {version = "9.0.3", features = ['cranelift']}

Ideally, you could update Wasmtime

Sure, I can update wasmtime to its latest v13.0.0 and update deps in 1st PR, and then enable vtune in 2nd PR (and some associated bazel config options).

On the default features - I had hoped that features like pooling-allocator and parallel-compilation would be helpful for perf in some cases. Would it make sense to enable these on a case-by-case basis down the road (after some initial investigation/perf estimates in a separate issue)?

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member

On the default features - I had hoped that features like pooling-allocator and parallel-compilation would be helpful for perf in some cases. Would it make sense to enable these on a case-by-case basis down the road (after some initial investigation/perf estimates in a separate issue)?

Enabling features one-by-one is fine, if justified.

@rahulchaphalkar
Copy link
Author

PR (1/2) opened for updating wasmtime, #368

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants