RESOLVED CONFIGURATION CHANGED 166480
WebAssembly: test compile / instantiate in a Worker 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166480
Summary WebAssembly: test compile / instantiate in a Worker
JF Bastien
Reported 2016-12-26 09:35:43 PST
I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. We should have a test that this works well. Related: - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982
Attachments
Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Saam Barati
Comment 1 2016-12-26 11:34:36 PST
(In reply to comment #0) > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > We should have a test that this works well. > > Related: > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being asynchronous internally.
Saam Barati
Comment 2 2016-12-26 11:35:09 PST
(In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > Related: > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > asynchronous internally. Also, I agree we should have a test for this.
JF Bastien
Comment 3 2016-12-26 11:40:55 PST
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > Related: > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > asynchronous internally. > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / Table all work as expected.
Saam Barati
Comment 4 2016-12-26 12:08:21 PST
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > Table all work as expected. Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a different VM
JF Bastien
Comment 5 2016-12-26 12:09:32 PST
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > > Table all work as expected. > > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a > different VM I don't know what's expected :-D
Saam Barati
Comment 6 2016-12-26 12:21:19 PST
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > > > > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > > > Table all work as expected. > > > > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do > > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a > > different VM > > I don't know what's expected :-D We won't be able to compile a Module then ship over the module across workers. We will be able to have workers that have their own Modules/Instances/etc that can run independently. We need to think about what happens when we try to ship over an ArrayBuffer for Memory. This should probably not be allowed since it's backed by Wasm::Memory mmaped memory.
JF Bastien
Comment 7 2016-12-26 12:23:51 PST
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > > > > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > > > > > > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > > > > Table all work as expected. > > > > > > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do > > > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a > > > different VM > > > > I don't know what's expected :-D > > We won't be able to compile a Module then ship over the module across > workers. We will be able to have workers that have their own > Modules/Instances/etc that can run independently. We need to think about > what happens when we try to ship over an ArrayBuffer for Memory. This should > probably not be allowed since it's backed by Wasm::Memory mmaped memory. IIUC they serialize WebAssembly.Module, and transfer it from Worker to main thread. Apparently this works in Chrome / FF. Should we file an issue on this in the design repo?
Saam Barati
Comment 8 2016-12-26 12:27:27 PST
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > > > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > > > > > > > > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > > > > > Table all work as expected. > > > > > > > > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do > > > > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a > > > > different VM > > > > > > I don't know what's expected :-D > > > > We won't be able to compile a Module then ship over the module across > > workers. We will be able to have workers that have their own > > Modules/Instances/etc that can run independently. We need to think about > > what happens when we try to ship over an ArrayBuffer for Memory. This should > > probably not be allowed since it's backed by Wasm::Memory mmaped memory. > > IIUC they serialize WebAssembly.Module, and transfer it from Worker to main > thread. Apparently this works in Chrome / FF. Should we file an issue on > this in the design repo? We should probably support the same serialization. I'm interested to know what happens to the underlying Memory/etc in the worker that created them after they're transferred. Also, what happens to the underlying memory? Is there a spec for this serialization? A better API than using workers would be we should just make the asynchronous APIs truly asynchronous. I don't think that should be too difficult
JF Bastien
Comment 9 2016-12-26 13:02:03 PST
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > > > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile > > > > > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous. > > > > > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes > > > > > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should have a test that this works well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related: > > > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016 > > > > > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being > > > > > > > > asynchronous internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory / > > > > > > Table all work as expected. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do > > > > > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a > > > > > different VM > > > > > > > > I don't know what's expected :-D > > > > > > We won't be able to compile a Module then ship over the module across > > > workers. We will be able to have workers that have their own > > > Modules/Instances/etc that can run independently. We need to think about > > > what happens when we try to ship over an ArrayBuffer for Memory. This should > > > probably not be allowed since it's backed by Wasm::Memory mmaped memory. > > > > IIUC they serialize WebAssembly.Module, and transfer it from Worker to main > > thread. Apparently this works in Chrome / FF. Should we file an issue on > > this in the design repo? > We should probably support the same serialization. I'm interested to know > what happens to the underlying Memory/etc in the worker that created them > after they're transferred. Also, what happens to the underlying memory? Is > there a spec for this serialization? A better API than using workers would > be we should just make the asynchronous APIs truly asynchronous. I don't > think that should be too difficult I believe that only Module is expected to be postMessage-able correctly, and that the details are tied to IndexDB support: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166481
JF Bastien
Comment 10 2016-12-26 13:04:26 PST
At a minimum we'll have to be able to patch vm.topJSWebAssemblyInstance (I'm removing the other wasm things from VM).
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 11 2017-05-03 09:56:41 PDT
<rdar://problem/31965359>
Saam Barati
Comment 12 2017-05-03 10:17:25 PDT
This is already done.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.