Fix SDK Docker build scripts, update Emscripten #172
Conversation
krinkinmu
requested review from
PiotrSikora,
martijneken and
mpwarres
as code owners
|
Thanks for the PR! Few thoughts from my end:
|
Thank you! I'm going to take a look at the Bazel toolchain update, I will post in the PR, once it's ready for review. |
|
@martijneken I think I have a working change that updates Bazel build files to the newer version of emsdk, but I hit a bit of an issue. I can see that currently Bazel configuration patches emsdk. Digging through the history, it seems like the patch was added to work around some build issues (see #149). Reading through the issue it seems like it manifested when building some proxy-wasm-cpp-host tests (#149 (comment)). With that in mind, I tried to reproduce the issue, so that I can generate and verify the refreshed version of the patch. However, I don't seem to be able to reproduce the issue. It's a long shot, but by any chance do you remeber under what circumstances #149 manifested? NOTE: I will still try to reproduce it myself, I'm just throwing this question in in case you might remember the context. UPDATE: Didn't reproduce it yet, but I think the build failure happened when building from Envoy, so to reproduce the error we need Envoy with external dependency on proxy-wasm-cpp-host that does not contain this patch, working on reproducing the issue through Envoy now. |
|
@martijneken I added emsdk update for Bazel build scripts as well now. PTAL. One thing that I want to call out. I tried to reproduce the problem reported in #149 locally to test a new emsdk patch, however, I wasn't able to do that. I don't think that the patch is needed since emscripten-core/emsdk#1045 which removes the npm modules as a dependency for the toolchain (among other things) and that should uktimately achieve the same effect. That being said, given that I couldn't reproduce the original issue, I wasn't able to explicitly confirm that. |
The way the script is currently it does not work (anymore). I'm aware of two issues with the current setup: 1. emsdk underneath installs and uses Node JS and the version of Node JS is not pinned by the script and isn't tied to the version of the SDK used. As a result, emsdk moved to a newer version of Node JS than the one that was probably used when the scripts were created. This new version (it seems, the version currently being used is 18.20.3) requires a relatively fresh version of glibc which just isn't available in Ubuntu Bionic used as a base image. That results in obscure errors from CMake (see proxy-wasm#170) 2. for whatever reason, the version of the protobuf static libraries currently in the repo, don't seem to work. I don't really know how the issue happened, but there were at least 2 users that faced the problem (see proxy-wasm#161). To resolve the first issue, we have a bunch of options: 1. Fix the version of emsdk 2. Fix the version of Node JS 3. Update the version of glibc I figured I can combine options 1 and 3 together for the following reasons: 1. Fixing the version of emsdk fixes the problem 2. The problem arised from the fact that the versions of software used in the build script are a bit old, so an update might be in order, even though we have other solutions to the problem. > NOTE: It's my understanding that fixing emsdk version should also > pin Node JS version, so if we deploy option 1, option 2 seem > redundant. For the second problem, I think there is only one ultimate solution - not store binary artifacts in the repository and instead build them from the sources in the repo. It seems that in the past there was a concern that building protobuf libraries takes a long time - it's still certainly the case. However, I think we can compensate for that in two ways: 1. Drop WAVM - it does not seem like WAVM is still needed (the project itself appears to be dead and hasn't had any updates for at least 2 years), but also one of the comments in proxy-wasm#158, that removed the WAVM from the docs, also suggests that three doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep WAVM in the SDK build script. 2. Take advantage of potential hardware threads in the system when calling make - most laptops or servers these days have multiple cores, so if we have to build protobuf libraries twice, we can speed it up by using more cores. With all those changes made, the build time adds up to something like 32 minutes on my laptop, compared to the 48m without building protobuf libraries from sources (and without adding -j option to make). So I think the additional time spent on building protobuf library is compensated by other changes. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <krinkin.m.u@gmail.com>
This CL mostly follows the instructions in https://github.com/emscripten-core/emsdk/blob/main/bazel/README.md. Even so, there are a few things that are worth mentioning: 1. I tested the changes locally and in my tests incompatible_enable_cc_toolchain_resolution bazel flag made no difference (e.g. everything builds with or without the flag); I still keep it though because instructions say that it should be there and it does not cause any harm. 2. I don't think that we still need to patch emsdk to exclude npm modules from the toolchain, because it appears that upstream already removed those as a toolchain dependency in emscripten-core/emsdk#1045. It's worth noting, that even though I don't think that emsdk patch is still needed, I actually wasn't able to reproduce the problem reported in proxy-wasm#149 locally without the emsdk.patch even with the current version of emsdk used by C++ SDK. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <krinkin.m.u@gmail.com>
|
SDK changes LGTM. I am running some integration tests:
Don't recall; it might have been gcc specific. |
|
@martijneken if you note somewhere what tests you're running manually, I will make sure to run them myself going forward (and include the results) and maybe automate them as well. |
More or less trying to replicate the CI builds and tests in 1 or 2 local configurations:
Envoy and v8 builds take a long time, still running. Will send the Envoy PR if/when this succeeds. |
|
All looks good locally. CI tests:
Looks like you've done it! I'm doing some final integration testing with Abseil and RE2. Stay tuned. |
martijneken
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you update: https://github.com/proxy-wasm/proxy-wasm-cpp-sdk/blob/main/docs/building.md
- update the emsdk version
- remove the libprotobuf.a section
I will send a follow-up PR to add full support for Abseil and RE2.
Depends on Emscripten update in proxy-wasm#172. Signed-off-by: Martijn Stevenson <mstevenson@google.com>
|
LGTM after docs fix. I have a follow-up PR to get full Abseil/RE2 support \o/ #173 |
This is a followup to the previous commits that refreshed the build scripts and emsdk. This change reconciles the docs with the current state of the build scripts. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <krinkin.m.u@gmail.com>
I updated the docs with the new emsdk version. I didn't completely remove protobuf section though. I might be missing something, but the way I understand the docs it tries to explain how to prepare all the dependencies without using Docker container or relying on Bazel. So I updated the wording in the docs, but kept the section about protobuf libraries in it. |
|
@krinkinmu I don't recall how the repo permissions are set. If you need us to merge this PR, give a shout when ready. |
It's a followup for the previous changes that updated emsdk version and refreshed the build scripts. Testing confirms that patches for the protobuf library sources are not necessary anymore, so I'm updating this Makefile to remove the patching logic that was already removed from all other places. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <krinkin.m.u@gmail.com>
|
@martijneken it seems that I cannot merge it myself. Changing protection rules is welcome (to allow merging approved PRs), but in the meantime would you mind pushing a button for me? |
|
ACK, I will look at the repo rules. Thanks for your PR, this is awesome! |
Depends on Emscripten update in proxy-wasm#172. Signed-off-by: Martijn Stevenson <mstevenson@google.com>
|
Something we forgot about in review: there have been some changes to Emscripten memory management:
We will send a follow-up PR to tweak these values a bit for server environments. |
Sent #174, PTAL |
|
@martijneken sorry my bad, I didn't check it - I can send a follow up PR shortly. I've attempted to trace what the previous values were and here is what I found so far:
It looks like STACK_SIZE is the only thing that changed, unless I'm missing something. As for INITIAL_HEAP, I'm not certain what value it should be and how harsh the penalty for setting it too low and growing the heap later. Would it make sense to leave it as-is for now, assuming my understanding that it didn't change is correct? It looks like these options are not currently configurable from proxy_wasm_cc_binary rule. I can expose those as configuration options along the way? |
|
Regarding removed patches for
Separately, you should either cc or add @kyessenov to |
The way the script is currently it does not work (anymore). I'm aware of two issues with the current setup:
emsdk underneath installs and uses Node JS and the version of Node JS is not pinned by the script and isn't tied to the version of the SDK used.
As a result, emsdk moved to a newer version of Node JS than the one that was probably used when the scripts were created. This new version (it seems, the version currently being used is 18.20.3) requires a relatively fresh version of glibc which just isn't available in Ubuntu Bionic used as a base image. That results in obscure errors from CMake (see docker build fails with "Could NOT find Threads (missing: Threads_FOUND)" #170)
for whatever reason, the version of the protobuf static libraries currently in the repo, don't seem to work. I don't really know how the issue happened, but there were at least 2 users that faced the problem (see Error building building example WASM filter #161).
To resolve the first issue, we have a bunch of options:
I figured I can combine options 1 and 3 together for the following reasons:
For the second problem, I think there is only one ultimate solution
It seems that in the past there was a concern that building protobuf libraries takes a long time - it's still certainly the case. However, I think we can compensate for that in two ways:
With all those changes made, the build time adds up to something like 32 minutes on my laptop, compared to the 48m without building protobuf libraries from sources (and without adding -j option to make). So I think the additional time spent on building protobuf library is compensated by other changes.