src,lib: reducing C++ calls of esm legacy main resolve

[H4ad]

This PR is related to nodejs/performance#73

Legacy Main Resolve

@anonrig raised that we could benefit from the implementation of legacyMainResolve on the C++ side, so here's the result so far:

                                                                                                                                                                confidence improvement accuracy (*)
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/non-exist' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000              ***     34.86 %       ±1.41%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/non-exist' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000                        ***     34.92 %       ±1.52%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.js' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000          ***     34.53 %       ±1.22%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.js' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000                    ***     35.39 %       ±1.57%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.json' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000        ***     34.78 %       ±1.30%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.json' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000                  ***     35.39 %       ±1.15%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.node' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000        ***     34.75 %       ±1.43%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.node' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000                  ***     35.84 %       ±1.33%
                                                                                                                                                                  (**)  (***)
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/non-exist' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000       ±1.88% ±2.45%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/non-exist' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000                 ±2.02% ±2.64%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.js' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000   ±1.62% ±2.12%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.js' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000             ±2.09% ±2.74%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.json' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000 ±1.74% ±2.27%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.json' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000           ±1.53% ±1.99%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.node' packageConfigMain='./index.js' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000 ±1.91% ±2.48%
esm/esm-legacyMainResolve.js resolvedFile='node_modules/test/index.node' packageConfigMain='' packageJsonUrl='node_modules/test/package.json' n=10000           ±1.77% ±2.31%

Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case, there are 8 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
  0.40 false positives, when considering a   5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
  0.08 false positives, when considering a   1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
  0.01 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

To be able to run the benchmark, first build the old node using this branch.

About the benchmark, I needed to create another benchmark just for this function to be able to see the improvements since the results of esm-defaultResolver.js was not reflecting the real impact of this change.

Potential optimizations

legacyMainResolve also calls fileURLToPath and didn't have any version on the C++ side, so I needed to rewrite this function.

I haven't benchmarked the JS version yet, but I think we can add some benchmarks and see if we can replace the JS version with the C++ version, I've tried to make the code as easy as possible to support exposing on the JS side in the future.

Tasks

• Rewrite legacyMainResolve
• Rewrite fileURLToPath
• Add benchmark for legacyMainResolve
• Add tests for legacyMainResolve

Acknowledgments

Huge thanks to @anonrig for the support and early review of this code and @RafaelGSS for the hints about the benchmark and permission model.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/loaders
• @nodejs/modules

[RafaelGSS]

IMO the new implementation is prone to memory leaks and it's quite complex to read

[RafaelGSS]

Wouldn't it block the event loop?

[debadree25]

This function seems to be the same as

node/src/node_file.cc

Line 1124 in 4bb06db

static void InternalModuleStat(const FunctionCallbackInfo<Value>& args) {

maybe we could DRY the implementation of both here? (this not really blocking just a observation)

[H4ad]

Initially, I was thinking of doing that but I cannot join both functions since I don't know how I can represent the state of the THROW_IF_INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSIONS, when the user doesn't have permissions, we should stop the execution of the function, so I need to return not only an int but also another state to tell the caller that the user doesn't have permission.

Because of this, I prefer to return an enum for FilePathIsFile and not over complicate both implementations.

[anonrig]

@RafaelGSS might help

[aduh95]

legacyMainResolve also calls fileURLToPath and didn't have any version on the C++ side, so I needed to rewrite this function.

Maybe we should first test/benchmark and land the fileURLToPath rewrite, which would simplify this PR. wdyt?

[H4ad]

@aduh95 Here's the benchmark for the rewrite of fileURLToPath:

IMPORTANT: Those values are not related to this PR, those numbers are only specific to the branch linked above the benchmark.

                                                                                         confidence improvement accuracy (*)    (**)   (***)
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='(url) file:///home/user/test/index.js'                    ***    -95.88 %       ±3.25%  ±4.44%  ±6.03%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='(url) file:///home/user/test%20index.js'                  ***    -95.19 %       ±2.98%  ±4.07%  ±5.52%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='(url) file:///home/user/test%2Findex.js'                  ***      8.66 %       ±2.71%  ±3.67%  ±4.90%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='(url) file://google.com/home/user/test%2Findex.js'                 0.68 %       ±2.75%  ±3.72%  ±4.99%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='(url) http://google.com/home/test.js'                     ***    -11.02 %       ±2.27%  ±3.05%  ±4.03%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='file:///home/user/test/index.js'                          ***     97.59 %       ±7.74% ±10.45% ±13.92%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='file:///home/user/test%20index.js'                        ***     86.08 %       ±7.51% ±10.15% ±13.52%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='file:///home/user/test%2Findex.js'                        ***    195.47 %       ±3.95%  ±5.35%  ±7.14%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='file://google.com/home/user/test%2Findex.js'              ***    166.80 %       ±3.19%  ±4.29%  ±5.66%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='http://google.com/home/test.js'                           ***    145.18 %       ±4.26%  ±5.76%  ±7.68%
url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url='not-even-a-url'                                           ***    168.09 %       ±7.25%  ±9.87% ±13.32%

Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case, there are 11 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
  0.55 false positives, when considering a   5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
  0.11 false positives, when considering a   1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
  0.01 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

Branch: main...h4ad-forks:node:perf/file-url-to-path

In resume, if we want to expose the C++ function, we should enforce the caller to always pass a string instead of URL.

[aduh95]

@H4ad I meant to have it as a separate PR.

[H4ad]

@aduh95 Yeah, my idea was to show you if you really want to do that with the performance benefits from it.

To be honest, in this form, without refactoring the whole ESM to avoid new URL and manipulate the data directly as a string, we will not see a performance improvement, it will be the complete opposite.

I think is better to go in the opposite direction, merge this one and then evaluate the benefits of exposing fileURLToPath, because as I said, will probably lead to a refactoring not only in the function itself but also in the places where they call to take the fastest path, which is manipulating directly the string.

[GeoffreyBooth]

url/file-url-to-path.js n=100000 url=’(url) file:///home/user/test/index.js’ *** -95.88 % ±3.25% ±4.44% ±6.03%

This seems to show that in the most common case of a file:// URL, this is 96% slower?

[H4ad]

@GeoffreyBooth Exactly, the way the fileURLToPath is used today, simply don't worth exposing the C++ version.

[GeoffreyBooth]

@GeoffreyBooth Exactly, the way the fileURLToPath is used today, simply don’t worth exposing the C++ version.

Okay, so then should we close this PR? Is there something else of value being proposed here?

[H4ad]

This PR is not about fileURLToPath, is about LegacyMainResolve.

The improvements for LegacyMainResolve is about 60~70%.

The rewrite of fileURLToPath was only because it was needed by LegacyMainResolve. Aduh suggested that maybe we could create a PR for fileURLToPath but as we've seen, it's not worth it, that's it.

Also, the metrics of #48325 (comment) is not related to this PR itself, are related to the branch I link in the comment, so those numbers don't reflect this PR since we don't have any overhead of calling C++ function from C++ side.

[H4ad]

The CI for Test Asan is failing due some memory issue:

==88318==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-use-after-scope on address 0x7ffd9ad085f8 at pc 0x00000431f995 bp 0x7ffd9ad07570 sp 0x7ffd9ad07568
READ of size 16 at 0x7ffd9ad085f8 thread T0
    #0 0x431f994 in ada::url_aggregator ada::parser::parse_url<ada::url_aggregator>(std::basic_string_view<char, std::char_traits<char> >, ada::url_aggregator const*) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0x431f994)
    #1 0x4312e13 in tl::expected<ada::url_aggregator, ada::errors> ada::parse<ada::url_aggregator>(std::basic_string_view<char, std::char_traits<char> >, ada::url_aggregator const*) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0x4312e13)
    #2 0xfc3b97 in node::fs::LegacyMainResolve(v8::FunctionCallbackInfo<v8::Value> const&) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0xfc3b97)
    #3 0x1779bab in v8::internal::MaybeHandle<v8::internal::Object> v8::internal::(anonymous namespace)::HandleApiCallHelper<false>(v8::internal::Isolate*, v8::internal::Handle<v8::internal::HeapObject>, v8::internal::Handle<v8::internal::FunctionTemplateInfo>, v8::internal::Handle<v8::internal::Object>, unsigned long*, int) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0x1779bab)
    #4 0x17779b4 in v8::internal::Builtin_HandleApiCall(int, unsigned long*, v8::internal::Isolate*) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0x17779b4)
    #5 0x3402e35 in Builtins_CEntry_Return1_ArgvOnStack_BuiltinExit (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0x3402e35)

Address 0x7ffd9ad085f8 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 1304 in frame
    #0 0xfc364f in node::fs::LegacyMainResolve(v8::FunctionCallbackInfo<v8::Value> const&) (/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/node+0xfc364f)

Ref: https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/5189308542/jobs/9354128411?pr=48325

Does anyone know what could be the cause?

I tried to reproduce it locally but I couldn't, so I have no idea how to fix it.

[H4ad]

@ruyadorno Hey, can I help with something?

[RaisinTen]

@H4ad does https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/backporting-to-release-lines.md#how-to-submit-a-backport-pull-request help?

[H4ad]

@RaisinTen Thanks, I'll try to backport by the end of this day.