Use resources #59
Merged
Use resources #59
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Now that component model `resource`s are specified and implemented, it should be possible to use the `resource` type for specifying tensors, graphs and execution contexts. Closes WebAssembly#47.
abrown
added a commit
to bytecodealliance/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline
abrown
added a commit
to bytecodealliance/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (bytecodealliance#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (bytecodealliance#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (bytecodealliance#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (bytecodealliance#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2024
Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (bytecodealliance#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to bytecodealliance/wasmtime
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 27, 2024
* wasi-nn: use resources Recent discussion in the wasi-nn proposal (see [wasi-nn#59], e.g.) has concluded that the right approach for representing wasi-nn "things" (tensors, graph, etc.) is with a component model _resource_. This sweeping change brings Wasmtime's implementation in line with that decision. Initially I had structured this PR to remove all of the WITX-based implementation (#8530). But, after consulting in a Zulip [thread] on what other WASI proposals aim to do, this PR pivoted to support _both_` the WITX-based and WIT-based ABIs (e.g., preview1 era versus preview2, component model era). What is clear is that the WITX-based specification will remain "frozen in time" while the WIT-based implementation moves forward. What that means for this PR is a "split world" paradigm. In many places, we have to distinguish between the `wit` and `witx` versions of the same thing. This change isn't the end state yet: it's a big step forward towards bringing Wasmtime back in line with the WIT spec but, despite my best efforts, doesn't fully fix all the TODOs left behind over several years of development. I have, however, taken the liberty to refactor and fix various parts as I came across them (e.g., the ONNX backend). I plan to continue working on this in future PRs to figure out a good error paradigm (the current one is too wordy) and device residence. [wasi-nn#59]: WebAssembly/wasi-nn#59 [thread]: https://bytecodealliance.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219900-wasi/topic/wasi-nn's.20preview1.20vs.20preview2.20timeline prtest:full * vet: audit `ort`-related crate updates * Simplify `WasiNnView` With @alexcrichton's help, this change removes the `trait WasiNnView` and `struct WasiNnImpl` wrapping that the WIT-based implementation used for accessing the host context. Instead, `WasiNnView` is now a `struct` containing the mutable references it needs to make things work. This unwraps one complex layer of abstraction, though it does have the downside that it complicates CLI code to split borrows of `Host`. * Temporarily disable WIT check * Refactor errors to use `trappable_error_type` This change simplifies the return types of the host implementations of the WIT-based wasi-nn. There is more work to be done with errors, e.g., to catch up with the upstream decision to return errors as resources. But this is better than the previous mess.
abrown
added a commit
to abrown/wasi-nn-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2024
As discussed in WebAssembly#43, there is no requirement to set up tensors prior to calling `compute` as well as retrieving them separately afterwards. As of WebAssembly#59, passing around tensors is cheap (they're resources now), so there is no data copy necessary if we adopt this PR. This change proposes removing the `set-input` and `get-output` functions, moving all of the tensor-passing to `compute`. Closes WebAssembly#43.
abrown
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
As discussed in #43, there is no requirement to set up tensors prior to calling `compute` as well as retrieving them separately afterwards. As of #59, passing around tensors is cheap (they're resources now), so there is no data copy necessary if we adopt this PR. This change proposes removing the `set-input` and `get-output` functions, moving all of the tensor-passing to `compute`. Closes #43.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Now that component model
resources are specified and implemented, it should be possible to use theresourcetype for specifying tensors, graphs and execution contexts.Closes #47.