Skip to content

Conversation

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor

@aduh95 aduh95 commented Dec 7, 2020

The current constructors of Safe(Weak)?(Map|Set) classes are not "safe", they executes %ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next which may have been mutated in user-land.

That's the expected behaviour of subclasses default constructor defined the ECMAScript spec, and I think it makes sense to disable this behaviour in this case.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

I wonder if there's a performance impact on this? Not saying that this should be blocked if the performance degraded, just curious how big the impact would be.

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Dec 7, 2020

I wonder if there's a performance impact on this? Not saying that this should be blocked if the performance degraded, just curious how big the impact would be.

That would be indeed interesting to mesure. My guess is it would perform better with this PR (because it no longer iterates over the argument array), but maybe V8 has some optimisation shortcuts for this kind of thing.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 10, 2020

@nodejs/benchmarking My understanding is that benchmarking.nodejs.org is no longer updating and the Benchmarking WG is dormant and on its way to not being a thing anymore (if it hasn't already happened) but I wonder if there's a host or job that can run a good cross-set of benchmarks without taking days or weeks to run. This PR could have wide-ranging performance impacts (positive, I hope, but would like to measure).

@ExE-Boss
Copy link
Contributor

Note that once tc39/ecma262#2216 is implemented, it will be possible to revert this.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

@Trott From what I can tell https://benchmarking.nodejs.org/ is still updating?

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 12, 2020

@Trott From what I can tell https://benchmarking.nodejs.org/ is still updating?

It seems that the graphs are being updated for 10.x and 12.x It doesn't look like there have ever been results recorded there for 14.x or 15.x, and master branch/nightly doesn't seem to be recorded anymore either.

Copy link
Contributor

@ExE-Boss ExE-Boss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To ensure the correct length, this should use the following, which also makes it possible to remove // eslint‑disable‑line no‑useless‑constructor comment:

@PoojaDurgad PoojaDurgad added the lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. label Dec 17, 2020
@Trott Trott added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Dec 18, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Dec 18, 2020
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Dec 20, 2020

I'm curious if the regressions from #36532 stem from the changes in this PR. If so, then this PR would have quite a negative performance impact.

I wonder if there's a host or job that can run a good cross-set of benchmarks without taking days or weeks to run.

FWIW I've been doing something like that on my own dedicated (older and spare) hardware since February. The total time to run all of the benchmarks used there is currently around 22-24 hours. I think that kind of time frame is the sweet spot for detecting (committed) performance regressions in a timely manner while covering a decent number of categories.

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Dec 20, 2020

Given that #36587 doesn't have any negative impact on buffer creation perf, it's probably safe to assume this PR won't have much impact either.

@aduh95 aduh95 added the review wanted PRs that need reviews. label Dec 22, 2020
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems OK to me, although I would love to see a benchmark out of caution. Just not sure which ones are most likely to be affected by this.

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Dec 24, 2020

Benchmark CI (module): https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/796/

 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***) module/module-loader-deep.js cache='true' files=1000 ext='' *** 17.25 % ±9.69% ±12.94% ±16.95% module/module-loader-deep.js cache='true' files=1000 ext='.js' 3.60 % ±12.18% ±16.20% ±21.09% 
Results
 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***) module/module-loader-circular.js n=10000 1.54 % ±2.89% ±3.85% ±5.02% module/module-loader-deep.js cache='false' files=1000 ext='' 2.31 % ±4.40% ±5.87% ±7.68% module/module-loader-deep.js cache='false' files=1000 ext='.js' -2.45 % ±3.23% ±4.30% ±5.60% module/module-loader-deep.js cache='true' files=1000 ext='' *** 17.25 % ±9.69% ±12.94% ±16.95% module/module-loader-deep.js cache='true' files=1000 ext='.js' 3.60 % ±12.18% ±16.20% ±21.09% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='/' -1.77 % ±3.14% ±4.19% ±5.49% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='' 0.09 % ±2.55% ±3.40% ±4.42% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='/index.js' 0.33 % ±4.46% ±5.95% ±7.80% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='/' 1.12 % ±4.61% ±6.14% ±8.01% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='' 2.61 % ±4.43% ±5.93% ±7.79% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='/index.js' -2.22 % ±5.68% ±7.56% ±9.84% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='/' 1.12 % ±5.88% ±7.83% ±10.20% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='' -4.75 % ±5.64% ±7.50% ±9.76% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='/index.js' -1.29 % ±4.19% ±5.58% ±7.28% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='/' 0.08 % ±4.26% ±5.67% ±7.39% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='' -1.30 % ±4.65% ±6.19% ±8.05% module/module-loader.js cache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='/index.js' -3.58 % ±3.67% ±4.89% ±6.36% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='/' 0.03 % ±1.30% ±1.73% ±2.26% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='' -0.89 % ±1.50% ±2.00% ±2.61% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='/index.js' 0.10 % ±1.54% ±2.05% ±2.67% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='/' -1.41 % ±1.95% ±2.62% ±3.44% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='' -2.28 % ±2.85% ±3.79% ±4.93% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='rel' name='/index.js' 0.31 % ±2.88% ±3.84% ±5.02% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='/' -3.51 % ±5.01% ±6.67% ±8.69% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='' 0.85 % ±4.77% ±6.43% ±8.53% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='abs' name='/index.js' -0.92 % ±3.98% ±5.30% ±6.91% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='/' -0.48 % ±4.09% ±5.44% ±7.08% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='' -1.50 % ±2.99% ±4.00% ±5.26% module/module-loader.js cache='true' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='/index.js' 0.97 % ±4.88% ±6.52% ±8.52% Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive result increases. In this case there are 29 comparisons, you can thus expect the following amount of false-positive results: 1.45 false positives, when considering a 5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***), 0.29 false positives, when considering a 1% risk acceptance (**, ***), 0.03 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***) 
@aduh95 aduh95 added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. labels Dec 25, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Dec 25, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Landed in 997f2fc...40fc395

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Dec 25, 2020
nodejs-github-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 25, 2020
PR-URL: #36428 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
nodejs-github-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 25, 2020
Using an explicit constructor is necessary to avoid relying on `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]` and `%ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next`, which can be mutated by users. PR-URL: #36587 Refs: #36428 Refs: #36532 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
@aduh95 aduh95 deleted the safe-constructor branch December 25, 2020 18:44
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2021
PR-URL: #36428 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2021
Using an explicit constructor is necessary to avoid relying on `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]` and `%ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next`, which can be mutated by users. PR-URL: #36587 Refs: #36428 Refs: #36532 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
@danielleadams danielleadams mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2021
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2021
PR-URL: #36428 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2021
Using an explicit constructor is necessary to avoid relying on `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]` and `%ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next`, which can be mutated by users. PR-URL: #36587 Refs: #36428 Refs: #36532 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2021
PR-URL: #36428 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2021
Using an explicit constructor is necessary to avoid relying on `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]` and `%ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next`, which can be mutated by users. PR-URL: #36587 Refs: #36428 Refs: #36532 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2021
PR-URL: #36428 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2021
Using an explicit constructor is necessary to avoid relying on `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]` and `%ArrayIteratorPrototype%.next`, which can be mutated by users. PR-URL: #36587 Refs: #36428 Refs: #36532 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. review wanted PRs that need reviews.

7 participants