Replace wasmparser-nostd fork with upstream wasmparser

[Robbepop]

Thread discussing the performance regressions in wasmparser:
bytecodealliance/wasm-tools#1701

---

Unfortunately benchmarks conducted locally show significant performance regressions for Wasm validation:

We can see this clearly in the posted screenshot since translate/tiny_keccak/checked/eager regresses massively while translate/tiny_keccak/unchecked/eager only regresses by 3% which could be noise.

The only difference between these two cases is that translate/tiny_keccak/checked/eager validates the Wasm via wasmparser while translate/tiny_keccak/unchecked/eager skips Wasm validation and only translates the Wasm via Wasmi.

The huge 48% performance regression for the checked/lazy test case indicates that Wasm validation has a much higher constant cost bump for validation of non-function bodies, too. OR it indicates that the setup of the function validators became a lot more expensive.

Reproduce benchmarks locally:

1. On main branch: cargo bench --bench benches -- --save-baseline main
2. On PR branch: cargo bench --bench benches -- --baseline main

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 59.86395% with 59 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.45%. Comparing base (e427d0f) to head (8ee3373).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/wasmi/src/engine/translator/mod.rs	18.18%	27 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/module/utils.rs	62.96%	10 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/module/init_expr.rs	33.33%	8 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/engine/mod.rs	12.50%	7 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/module/element.rs	77.77%	4 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/engine/config.rs	92.85%	2 Missing ⚠️
crates/wasmi/src/module/parser.rs	90.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1141      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.57%   81.45%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         306      306              
  Lines       25271    25349      +78     
==========================================
+ Hits        20616    20648      +32     
- Misses       4655     4701      +46     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Robbepop]

I just found one reason why it regressed: I benchmarked without setting the no-hash-maps feature. Generally BTreeMap is faster than HashMap for Wasmi uses and the old wasmparser-nostd fork alsways uses BTreeMaps. With this feature set local benchmarks still indicate regressions but they are less severe, ranging between 10-25% instead of 20-35%. The unchecked (no validation) case now even has slightly improved performance which indicates very strongly to me that the regressions that we see come from the Wasm validation.

The biggest regression we see now is lazy-translation which further indicates that regressions are in the Wasm validation since lazy-translation eagerly validates the Wasm input and avoids translating it via Wasmi, thus more of the total time spent in the benchmark comes from wasmparser's parsing and validation.

[Robbepop]

Running yet another benchmark because I forgot to use no-hash-maps on main. 🤦

This is the slowdown from main to this PR:

[Robbepop]

After improving translation benchmarks and updating wasmparser to v0.218.0 I reran benchmarks:

tl;dr Conclusions

• Benchmarks with validation (checked) are affected a lot worse.
  • Wasm validation seems to have the largest regressions overall.
• Benchmarks that perform validation only on non-code section parts are particularly affected. (lazy/checked)
  • Thus regressions are also outside of the code section validation.
• Even benchmarks that perform no Wasm validation whatsoever are affected. (unchecked)
  • Thus parsing Wasm has also regressed.
  • Parsing outside of the code section has regressed more. (eager/unchecked vs lazy/unchecked)
• Small benchmarks (tiny_keccak and erc20) are affected a lot worse than large ones (spidermonkey).
  • This implies that the base overhead for parsing and validation has been lifted/regressed.

Tiny-Keccak

Spidermonkey

ERC-20

[Robbepop]

With wasmparser v0.219.0 there is a new component-model crate feature which disables Wasm component-model support. Wasmi can disable this for some nice compile time improvements:

v0.218.0:

cargo build -p wasmi --profile bench  22.52s user 1.16s system 201% cpu 11.778 total

v0.219.0:

cargo build -p wasmi --profile bench  18.95s user 1.18s system 178% cpu 11.248 total

[Robbepop]

I just found out that wasmparser v0.219.0 has this API:
https://docs.rs/wasmparser/0.219.1/wasmparser/struct.FunctionBody.html#method.as_bytes

This will likely fix a workaround in Wasmi:

• wasmi/crates/wasmi/src/module/parser/buffered.rs

  Lines 159 to 170 in 02621ad

  	match payload {
  	Payload::CodeSectionEntry(func_body) => {
  	// Note: Unfortunately the `wasmparser` crate is missing an API
  	// to return the byte slice for the respective code section
  	// entry payload. Please remove this work around as soon as
  	// such an API becomes available.
  	let bytes = Self::consume_buffer(consumed, buffer);
  	let remaining = func_body.get_binary_reader().bytes_remaining();
  	let start = consumed - remaining;
  	let bytes = &bytes[start..];
  	self.process_code_entry(func_body, bytes, &header)?;
  	}

• wasmi/crates/wasmi/src/engine/translator/driver.rs

  Lines 19 to 31 in 02621ad

  	pub fn new(
  	offset: impl Into<Option<usize>>,
  	bytes: &'parser [u8],
  	translator: T,
  	) -> Result<Self, Error> {
  	let offset = offset.into().unwrap_or(0);
  	let func_body = FunctionBody::new(offset, bytes);
  	Ok(Self {
  	func_body,
  	bytes,
  	translator,
  	})
  	}

[danielstuart14]

#1197 requires this change.

[Robbepop]

With bytecodealliance/wasm-tools#1906 merged we can also merge this PR once wasmparser v0.221 has been released which might happen next week. 🎉

cc @danielstuart14