[v8.x-backport] n-api: improve runtime perf of n-api func call

[gabrielschulhof]

Added a new struct CallbackBundle to eliminate all
GetInternalField() calls.

The principle is to store all required data inside a C++ struct,
and then store the pointer in the JavaScript object. Before this
change, the required data are stored in the JavaScript object in
3 or 4 seperate pointers. For every napi fun call, 3 of them
have to be fetched out, which are 3 GetInternalField() calls;
after this change, the C++ struct will be directly fetched out
by using v8::External::Value(), which is faster.

Profiling data show that GetInternalField() is slow.
On an i7-4770K (3.50GHz) box, a C++ V8-binding fun call is 8 ns,
before this change, napi fun call is 36 ns; after this change,
napi fun call is 20 ns.

The above data are measured using a modified benchmark in
'benchmark/misc/function_call'. The modification adds an indicator
of the average time of a "chatty" napi fun call (max 50M runs).
This change will speed up chatty case 1.8x (overall), and will cut
down the delay of napi mechanism to approx. 0.5x.

Background: a simple C++ binding function (e.g. receiving little
from JS, doing little and returning little to JS) is called
'chatty' case for JS<-->C++ fun call routine.

This improvement also applies to getter/setter fun calls.

PR-URL: #21072

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[nodejs-github-bot]

@gabrielschulhof build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/240/pipeline

[gabrielschulhof]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/15778/

[gabrielschulhof]

Resumed as: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/15781/

[mhdawson]

@gabrielschulhof I assume this did not land cleanly so a merge was required. Is there a better way to review than looking at all of the changes. Hopeing there is a smaller subset that needs a review.

[gabrielschulhof]

@mhdawson I was actually proactive about this one, because it's performance related. We definitely want this backported, and it didn't land cleanly. I may have to rebase because these other commits are definitely not intended to be part of the backport.

[gabrielschulhof]

@mhdawson rebased – the delta is much smaller now.

[MylesBorins]

ci: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16100/

[MylesBorins]

landing in 5026ab4