It only takes ~99 milliseconds to validate those functions.

Created attachment 297445 [details] WIP This is a pretty simple parallel compiler and I think it works. It makes compiling unity more than 4x faster on my MBP. I have some some other patch dependencies in here, so I'll wait for those to land before putting this one up for review. Comments welcome now, though.

Comment on attachment 297445 [details] WIP View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297445&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:144 > + constexpr uint32_t threadCount = 8; I need to figure out the API to get the number of core's on the CPU we're running on here, instead of the constant 8.

Comment on attachment 297445 [details] WIP View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297445&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:97 > + //dataLogLn("Took ", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - start).count(), "ms to validate"); Debug. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:118 > + //Vector<Vector<UnlinkedWasmToWasmCall>> unlinkedWasmToWasmCalls; ? > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:140 > + m_compilationContexts.resize(m_functionLocationInBinary.size()); I'd do this right after tryReserveCapacity. >> Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:144 >> + constexpr uint32_t threadCount = 8; > > I need to figure out the API to get the number of core's on the CPU we're running on here, instead of the constant 8. std::thread::hardware_concurrency for number of cores. Or does WebKit have its own thing? > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:167 > + ASSERT(validateFunction(functionStart, functionLength, signature, m_functionIndexSpace, *m_moduleInformation)); Why here as well? > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:189 > + //dataLogLn("Took ", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - start).count(), "us to do ending loop"); Debug.

Created attachment 297478 [details] patch

Attachment 297478 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:212: This { should be at the end of the previous line [whitespace/braces] [4] Total errors found: 1 in 6 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

Comment on attachment 297478 [details] patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297478&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:12 > + inside Wasmb3IRGenerator to be thread safe. drive by comment: /b3/B3/

Comment on attachment 297478 [details] patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297478&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmB3IRGenerator.cpp:934 > + B3::generate(procedure, *compilationContext.wasmEntrypointJIT); In the FTL we run generate() with heap access and prepareForGeneration without heap access, so the GC can interleave during the more expensive prepare phase. Not sure that matters at all here. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:64 > + std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point startTime; Please use MonotonicTime. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:101 > + dataLogLn("Took ", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - startTime).count(), " us to validate module"); So much less code if you use MonotonicTime. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:164 > + m_lock.lock(); > + if (m_currentIndex >= m_functionLocationInBinary.size()) { > + m_lock.unlock(); > + return; > + } > + uint32_t functionIndex = m_currentIndex; > + ++m_currentIndex; > + m_lock.unlock(); Please use a RAII thing, like: { auto locker = holdLock(m_lock); if (stuff) return; things } Also, please consider the following: - ParallelHelperPool for compiling. This prevents you from starting 64 threads if 8 workers try to wasm compile at the same time. - ParallelVectorIterator for doing the m_currentIndex stuff. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:185 > + m_lock.lock(); > + if (!m_errorMessage) { > + // Multiple compiles could fail simultaneously. We arbitrarily choose the first. > + m_errorMessage = parseAndCompileResult.error(); // FIXME make this an Expected. > + } > + m_currentIndex = m_functionLocationInBinary.size(); > + m_lock.unlock(); Ditto. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:195 > + std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point startTime; MonotonicTime please.

I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be a good idea. ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it.

(In reply to comment #9) > I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. > Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. > > ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be > a good idea. > > ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it. ParallelHelperPool::runFunctionInParallel is what I want. However, I probably want a ParallelHelperPool per process for compiling Wasm, instead of separate ones per module. I'll start with just having one for the Module, but open a bug to have this shared across module compilations.

(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. > > Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. > > > > ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be > > a good idea. > > > > ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it. > > ParallelHelperPool::runFunctionInParallel is what I want. However, I > probably want a ParallelHelperPool per process for compiling Wasm, instead > of separate ones per module. I'll start with just having one for the Module, > but open a bug to have this shared across module compilations. This will probably be more important once we have concurrent module compilation and may have multiple concurrent compilations happening simultaneously.

(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. > > > Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. > > > > > > ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be > > > a good idea. > > > > > > ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it. > > > > ParallelHelperPool::runFunctionInParallel is what I want. However, I > > probably want a ParallelHelperPool per process for compiling Wasm, instead > > of separate ones per module. I'll start with just having one for the Module, > > but open a bug to have this shared across module compilations. > > This will probably be more important once we have concurrent module > compilation and may have multiple concurrent compilations happening > simultaneously. Actually, I think that ParallelHelper might be overkill for what I'm doing now. I think we should move to it once we have truly concurrent compilations. I guess I could also create one ParallelHelperPool per process, but I think that's the only situation where this will make a difference now.

Created attachment 297492 [details] patch Address Fil's feedback w.r.t MonotinicTime and LockHolder.

Attachment 297492 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:214: This { should be at the end of the previous line [whitespace/braces] [4] Total errors found: 1 in 6 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like we're stack overflowing. I'm investigating.

(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. > > > > Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. > > > > > > > > ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be > > > > a good idea. > > > > > > > > ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it. > > > > > > ParallelHelperPool::runFunctionInParallel is what I want. However, I > > > probably want a ParallelHelperPool per process for compiling Wasm, instead > > > of separate ones per module. I'll start with just having one for the Module, > > > but open a bug to have this shared across module compilations. > > > > This will probably be more important once we have concurrent module > > compilation and may have multiple concurrent compilations happening > > simultaneously. > > Actually, I think that ParallelHelper might be overkill for what I'm doing > now. I think we should move to it once we have truly concurrent > compilations. I guess I could also create one ParallelHelperPool per > process, but I think that's the only situation where this will make a > difference now. What does it mean to have truly concurrent compilations?

Comment on attachment 297492 [details] patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297492&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:104 > + dataLogLn("Took ", Seconds(MonotonicTime::now() - startTime).microseconds(), " us to validate module"); You don't need Seconds(...). You can simply do (MonotonicTime::now() - startTime).microseconds(). The type of subtracting MonotonicTimes is Seconds. > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:236 > + dataLogLn("Took ", Seconds(MonotonicTime::now() - startTime).microseconds(), Ditto.

(In reply to comment #15) > Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like > we're stack overflowing. > > I'm investigating. I think it's because the Wasm Bound checks was a SharedTask instead of an std::function. (This might also be why we're throwing out of bounds memory exceptions!)

(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > > I think that out of my feedback, the most important is about std::chrono. > > > > > Lets not use that anymore. MonotonicTime is what you want instead. > > > > > > > > > > ParallelVectorIterator seems like exactly what you're doing, so it might be > > > > > a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > ParallelHelperPool is a neat optimization but we don't need it. > > > > > > > > ParallelHelperPool::runFunctionInParallel is what I want. However, I > > > > probably want a ParallelHelperPool per process for compiling Wasm, instead > > > > of separate ones per module. I'll start with just having one for the Module, > > > > but open a bug to have this shared across module compilations. > > > > > > This will probably be more important once we have concurrent module > > > compilation and may have multiple concurrent compilations happening > > > simultaneously. > > > > Actually, I think that ParallelHelper might be overkill for what I'm doing > > now. I think we should move to it once we have truly concurrent > > compilations. I guess I could also create one ParallelHelperPool per > > process, but I think that's the only situation where this will make a > > difference now. > > What does it mean to have truly concurrent compilations? While JavaScript code is executing, we can be compiling Wasm. When we're done compiling, we need to resolve the promise with a WebAssembly.Module object.

(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like > > we're stack overflowing. > > > > I'm investigating. > > I think it's because the Wasm Bound checks was a SharedTask instead of an > std::function. (This might also be why we're throwing out of bounds memory > exceptions!) I think that it's important to avoid using std::function in B3, because std::function involves expected copying and system malloc. The difference between them is that std::function copies the closure's state around on assignment. I think we want to avoid such state copying. That's why we use WTF::Function, WTF::ScopedLambda, and WTF::SharedTask to get different kinds of zero-copy closures.

(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like > > we're stack overflowing. > > > > I'm investigating. > > I think it's because the Wasm Bound checks was a SharedTask instead of an > std::function. (This might also be why we're throwing out of bounds memory > exceptions!) Ignore me.

(In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #18) > > (In reply to comment #15) > > > Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like > > > we're stack overflowing. > > > > > > I'm investigating. > > > > I think it's because the Wasm Bound checks was a SharedTask instead of an > > std::function. (This might also be why we're throwing out of bounds memory > > exceptions!) > > Ignore me. The bug is this code: ``` static CCallHelpers::Jump generate(Inst& inst, CCallHelpers& jit, GenerationContext& context) { WasmBoundsCheckValue* value = inst.origin->as<WasmBoundsCheckValue>(); CCallHelpers::Jump outOfBounds = Inst(Air::Branch64, value, Arg::relCond(CCallHelpers::AboveOrEqual), inst.args[0], inst.args[1]).generate(jit, context); context.latePaths.append(createSharedTask<GenerationContext::LatePathFunction>( [=] (CCallHelpers& jit, Air::GenerationContext&) { outOfBounds.link(&jit); context.code->wasmBoundsCheckGenerator()->run(jit, value->pinnedGPR(), value->offset()); })); // We said we were not a terminal. return CCallHelpers::Jump(); } ``` Which is copying the Context! That's a no-no. I'll make it so that we don't allow this to happen elsewhere.

(In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #21) > > (In reply to comment #18) > > > (In reply to comment #15) > > > > Hmm, I'm getting a debug crash while compiling unity where it looks like > > > > we're stack overflowing. > > > > > > > > I'm investigating. > > > > > > I think it's because the Wasm Bound checks was a SharedTask instead of an > > > std::function. (This might also be why we're throwing out of bounds memory > > > exceptions!) > > > > Ignore me. > > The bug is this code: > ``` > static CCallHelpers::Jump generate(Inst& inst, CCallHelpers& jit, > GenerationContext& context) > { > WasmBoundsCheckValue* value = > inst.origin->as<WasmBoundsCheckValue>(); > CCallHelpers::Jump outOfBounds = Inst(Air::Branch64, value, > Arg::relCond(CCallHelpers::AboveOrEqual), inst.args[0], > inst.args[1]).generate(jit, context); > > > context.latePaths.append(createSharedTask<GenerationContext:: > LatePathFunction>( > [=] (CCallHelpers& jit, Air::GenerationContext&) { > outOfBounds.link(&jit); > context.code->wasmBoundsCheckGenerator()->run(jit, > value->pinnedGPR(), value->offset()); > })); > > // We said we were not a terminal. > return CCallHelpers::Jump(); > } > ``` > > Which is copying the Context! That's a no-no. I'll make it so that we don't > allow this to happen elsewhere. I'm still not entirely sure why that's the bug. But it appears to be it.

Created attachment 297544 [details] patch

<rdar://problem/29758107>

Created attachment 297546 [details] patch

Attachment 297546 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmPlan.cpp:210: This { should be at the end of the previous line [whitespace/braces] [4] Total errors found: 1 in 8 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

Comment on attachment 297546 [details] patch r=me.

Comment on attachment 297546 [details] patch Clearing flags on attachment: 297546 Committed r210047: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/210047>

All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.