errors: improve performance of NodeError instantiation by Uzlopak · Pull Request #49654 · nodejs/node

Uzlopak · 2023-09-14T19:12:31Z

Well. I dont know why captureLargerStackTrace exists.

Maybe my approach is wrong. I dont know if I lack some node specific knowledge.

I tried to close the gap between the v8 Error class and NodeError. If we really need to support the instantiation of Errors without new, we could wrap it in function. But on the other hand, other Errors are also class type.

The tests basically pass locally, except /test/parallel/test-snapshot-worker.js. Maybe I messed something up (hope not :D)

So please dont be too harsh. 🫣

benchmarks:

Main:

aras@aras-Lenovo-Legion-5-17ARH05H:~/workspace/node$ node benchmark/error/node-error.js #
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code="built-in" n=1000000: 2,740,941.413385955
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code="built-in" n=1000000: 530,888.1376037208
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code="ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY" n=1000000: 160,106.7862310844
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code="ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY" n=1000000: 158,231.65339727345

PR

aras@aras-Lenovo-Legion-5-17ARH05H:~/workspace/node$ ./node benchmark/error/node-error.js #
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code="built-in" n=1000000: 2,755,590.7105245455
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code="built-in" n=1000000: 517,735.4538075898
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code="ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY" n=1000000: 2,243,410.1895228666
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code="ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY" n=1000000: 413,506.70459812187

So before we have about 170k and with the PR we have 413k. So we gain what? 240%?

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-14T19:12:36Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/crypto
@nodejs/loaders
@nodejs/streams

aduh95 · 2023-09-14T19:25:23Z

Benchmark CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1386/

Results

 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***)
error/error.js n=10000000 -0.66 % ±1.20% ±1.59% ±2.08%
error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='direct-call-noerr' 2.16 % ±4.40% ±5.86% ±7.62%
error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='direct-call-throw' *** 105.53 % ±3.23% ±4.31% ±5.63%
error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='hide-stackframes-noerr' 1.63 % ±5.28% ±7.03% ±9.17%
error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='hide-stackframes-throw' *** 102.13 % ±4.01% ±5.36% ±7.03%
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code='built-in' n=1000000 * 3.45 % ±3.24% ±4.32% ±5.63%
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code='ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY' n=1000000 *** 1505.54 % ±38.12% ±51.37% ±68.18%
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code='built-in' n=1000000 -1.31 % ±1.80% ±2.40% ±3.12%
error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code='ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY' n=1000000 *** 201.56 % ±3.60% ±4.81% ±6.29%

Uzlopak · 2023-09-14T19:29:38Z

Do the tests need to pass to trigger the benchmark?

rluvaton · 2023-09-14T19:34:21Z

Do the tests need to pass to trigger the benchmark?

no, it's a separate process

mcollina

lgtm, looks really good

Uzlopak · 2023-09-15T06:59:30Z

I had to patch the wpt testharness, because it checks if the constructor is equal the BaseClass. I tried to figure out if I somehow could cheat the logic. It worked in a user land script but not with the NodeError in NodeJs.
So i dont know if this is a break dealer, or not. I could propose a PR for the wpt testharness repo, but it seems to have alot of PRs unprocessed and if we dont have somebody on the wpr project it wouldnt get merged soon.

I worked 2 days on this PR and I tested a lot of variations on how to get it with prototype inheritance, avoid the ObjectDefineProperties and keep the attributes non-enumarable. But no chance. Only by using the proposed ES6 class I could achieve the desires behaviour.

Regarding the remaining error I really have no clue why it does not create the desired error message. I am really confused. So this why i also proposed the PR, because I a have no clue what the issue is. I thought maybe I messed up hard and somehow share resources between the errors. But no. So if somebody could help with this, because I really dont know what the issue is.

By using an es6 class we use v8s own captureStackTrace Logic and hide the Error with it.

It would also mean, that if we use this solution for all errors of node, that we optimize it basically to the maximum. So for more performance we need then to optimize v8.

rluvaton · 2023-09-15T08:16:00Z

Benchmark CI output:

00:54:38.751 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***)
00:54:38.751 error/error.js n=10000000 -0.66 % ±1.20% ±1.59% ±2.08%
00:54:38.751 error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='direct-call-noerr' 2.16 % ±4.40% ±5.86% ±7.62%
00:54:38.751 error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='direct-call-throw' *** 105.53 % ±3.23% ±4.31% ±5.63%
00:54:38.751 error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='hide-stackframes-noerr' 1.63 % ±5.28% ±7.03% ±9.17%
00:54:38.751 error/hidestackframes.js n=100000 type='hide-stackframes-throw' *** 102.13 % ±4.01% ±5.36% ±7.03%
00:54:38.751 error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code='built-in' n=1000000 * 3.45 % ±3.24% ±4.32% ±5.63%
00:54:38.751 error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=0 code='ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY' n=1000000 *** 1505.54 % ±38.12% ±51.37% ±68.18%
00:54:38.751 error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code='built-in' n=1000000 -1.31 % ±1.80% ±2.40% ±3.12%
00:54:38.751 error/node-error.js stackTraceLimit=10 code='ERR_HTTP2_STREAM_SELF_DEPENDENCY' n=1000000 *** 201.56 % ±3.60% ±4.81% ±6.29%
00:54:38.751 00:54:38.752 Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
00:54:38.752 result increases. In this case, there are 9 comparisons, you can thus
00:54:38.752 expect the following amount of false-positive results:
00:54:38.752 0.45 false positives, when considering a 5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
00:54:38.752 0.09 false positives, when considering a 1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
00:54:38.752 0.01 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

well done

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-15T23:14:48Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/53973/

benjamingr · 2023-09-15T23:25:36Z

Note this means Node gives worse errors since captureLargerStackTrace was used to add more stack frames in case Error.stackTraceLimit was set to a low value (which likely means the user would get no meaningful frames from outside of core) I think?

I think 656ce92#diff-670bf55805b781d9a3579f8bca9104c04d94af87cc33220149fd7d37b095ca1cR413 is the change that added it #35644

Uzlopak · 2023-09-16T06:41:38Z

@benjamingr

My assessment:
I think the reason why we needed captureLargerStackTrace was because the original NodeError function would instantiate first the (base) Error and add the properties to it and return the Error. So when you called e.g. throw new ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE you would always have also the NodeError function call in your stack trace as the first entry, which we dont want to show in the stacktrace as it is some node internal specific information nobody cares of. So we captured all stack traces and removed basically the top call away and applied the limit.

Now that we dont need to instantiate the base error but directly generate the error instance, the NodeError StackFrame is not created anymore. So we can use the v8 stacktrace functionality directly, without the need to manually limit the stacktrace.

The new logic:

'use strict';constkIsNodeError=Symbol('kIsNodeError');functionmakeNodeErrorWithCode(Base,key){classNodeErrorextendsBase{
#message ='';code=key;constructor(...args){super();this.message='bla'}get['constructor'](){returnBase;}get[kIsNodeError](){returntrue;}getmessage(){returnthis.#message;}setmessage(value){this.#message =value;}[Symbol.toStringTag]='Error'toString(){return`${this.name} [${key}]: ${this.message}`;}}Object.setPrototypeOf(NodeError.constructor,Base)returnNodeError;}constbase=TypeErrorconstErr=makeNodeErrorWithCode(base,'ERR_INVALID_URL');functiontest(){try{test1()}catch(e){console.log(e.stack)}}functiontest1(){test2()}functiontest2(){test3()}functiontest3(){test4()}functiontest4(){test5()}functiontest5(){test6()}functiontest6(){test7()}functiontest7(){test8()}functiontest8(){test9()}functiontest9(){test10()}functiontest10(){thrownewErr()}test()

aras@aras-Lenovo-Legion-5-17ARH05H:~/workspace/node$ ./node test.js TypeError: bla
at test10 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:89:9)
at test9 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:85:3)
at test8 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:81:3)
at test7 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:77:3)
at test6 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:73:3)
at test5 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:69:3)
at test4 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:65:3)
at test3 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:61:3)
at test2 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:57:3)
at test1 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:53:3)

vs. the old logic

'use strict';constkIsNodeError=Symbol('kIsNodeError');functionmakeNodeErrorWithCode(Base,key){returnfunctionNodeError(...args){constlimit=Error.stackTraceLimit;Error.stackTraceLimit=0;consterror=newBase();// Reset the limit and setting the name property.Error.stackTraceLimit=limit;constmessage='bla'Object.defineProperties(error,{[kIsNodeError]: {__proto__: null,value: true,enumerable: false,writable: false,configurable: true,},message: {__proto__: null,value: message,enumerable: false,writable: true,configurable: true,},toString: {__proto__: null,value(){return`${this.name} [${key}]: ${this.message}`;},enumerable: false,writable: true,configurable: true,},});Error.captureStackTrace(error);error.code=key;returnerror;};}constbase=TypeErrorconstErr=makeNodeErrorWithCode(base,'ERR_INVALID_URL');functiontest(){try{test1()}catch(e){console.log(e.stack)}}functiontest1(){test2()}functiontest2(){test3()}functiontest3(){test4()}functiontest4(){test5()}functiontest5(){test6()}functiontest6(){test7()}functiontest7(){test8()}functiontest8(){test9()}functiontest9(){test10()}functiontest10(){thrownewErr()}Error.stackTraceLimit=10test()

TypeError: bla
at new NodeError (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:39:11)
at test10 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:94:9)
at test9 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:90:3)
at test8 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:86:3)
at test7 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:82:3)
at test6 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:78:3)
at test5 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:74:3)
at test4 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:70:3)
at test3 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:66:3)
at test2 (/home/aras/workspace/node/test.js:62:3)

Uzlopak · 2023-09-16T12:05:03Z

@joyeecheung

Can you please help me, regarding this PR? I cant figure out why ERR_NOT_SUPPORTED_IN_SNAPSHOT is not having the correct message.

Uzlopak · 2023-09-17T21:58:03Z

@joyeecheung

Is this better?

Uzlopak · 2023-09-17T22:28:41Z

@joyeecheung

Should the other errors also become enumerable message attributes?

ERR_NOT_BUILDING_SNAPSHOT
ERR_DUPLICATE_STARTUP_SNAPSHOT_MAIN_FUNCTION

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-27T23:20:50Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/54307/

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-28T09:00:48Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/54318/

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-28T09:48:43Z

Commit Queue failed

- Loading data for nodejs/node/pull/49654
✔ Done loading data for nodejs/node/pull/49654
----------------------------------- PR info ------------------------------------
Title errors: improve performance of NodeError instantiation (#49654)
Author Aras Abbasi (@Uzlopak)
Branch Uzlopak:improve-perf-error-creation -> nodejs:main
Labels lib / src, performance, needs-ci, needs-benchmark-ci, commit-queue-squash
Commits 1
- errors: improve performance of instantiation
Committers 1
- uzlopak PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung ------------------------------ Generated metadata ------------------------------
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
⚠ Commits were pushed since the last approving review:
⚠ - errors: improve performance of instantiation
ℹ This PR was created on Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:12:31 GMT
✔ Approvals: 4
✔ - Matteo Collina (@mcollina) (TSC): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654#pullrequestreview-1628257155
✔ - Yagiz Nizipli (@anonrig) (TSC): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654#pullrequestreview-1642822449
✔ - Stephen Belanger (@Qard): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654#pullrequestreview-1633759369
✔ - Joyee Cheung (@joyeecheung) (TSC): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49654#pullrequestreview-1640186686
✔ Last GitHub CI successful
ℹ Last Benchmark CI on 2023-09-25T21:46:15Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1419/
ℹ Last Full PR CI on 2023-09-28T09:00:48Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/54318/
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/54318/
✔ Last Jenkins CI successful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
✔ Aborted `git node land` session in /home/runner/work/node/node/.ncu

https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/6337251698

Uzlopak · 2023-09-28T09:56:45Z

Ah come on...

nodejs-github-bot · 2023-09-28T09:57:40Z

Landed in cc725a6

Uzlopak · 2023-09-28T09:58:18Z

YEAH

rluvaton · 2023-09-28T09:58:23Z

well done @Uzlopak !

Uzlopak · 2023-09-28T10:07:57Z

Thank you. Next step is improving perf of SystemError

PR-URL: #49654 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Raz Luvaton <rluvaton@gmail.com>

PR-URL: nodejs#49654 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Raz Luvaton <rluvaton@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. labels Sep 14, 2023

rluvaton added performance Issues and PRs related to the performance of Node.js. needs-benchmark-ci PR that need a benchmark CI run. labels Sep 14, 2023

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rluvaton reviewed Sep 14, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlib/internal/fs/streams.js Outdated

mcollina approved these changes Sep 15, 2023
View reviewed changes

aduh95 reviewed Sep 15, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlib/internal/errors.js Outdated
Comment threadtest/fixtures/wpt/resources/testharness.js Outdated

anonrig added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 15, 2023

anonrig approved these changes Sep 15, 2023
View reviewed changes

github-actionsBot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 15, 2023

Qard approved these changes Sep 16, 2023
View reviewed changes

joyeecheung reviewed Sep 16, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlib/internal/errors.js Outdated

github-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Sep 17, 2023
CI Reliability 2023-09-17 nodejs/reliability#668
Open
32 tasks

github-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2023
CI Reliability 2023-09-18 nodejs/reliability#669
Open
33 tasks

H4ad mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2023
Class over raw object nodejs/performance#113
Open

Uzlopak changed the title ~~errors: improve performance of instantiation~~errors: improve performance of NodeError instantiationSep 18, 2023

github-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2023
CI Reliability 2023-09-19 nodejs/reliability#670
Open
32 tasks

Uzlopak force-pushed the improve-perf-error-creation branch from e4365ae to a3c2d60Compare September 27, 2023 22:45

anonrig added request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. and removed commit-queue-failed An error occurred while landing this pull request using GitHub Actions. labels Sep 27, 2023

github-actionsBot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 27, 2023

H4ad mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2023
Performance of node:fsnodejs/performance#106
Open

mcollina added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Sep 28, 2023

nodejs-github-bot added commit-queue-failed An error occurred while landing this pull request using GitHub Actions. and removed commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. labels Sep 28, 2023

rluvaton approved these changes Sep 28, 2023
View reviewed changes

rluvaton added commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. and removed commit-queue-failed An error occurred while landing this pull request using GitHub Actions. labels Sep 28, 2023

nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Sep 28, 2023

nodejs-github-bot merged commit cc725a6 into nodejs:mainSep 28, 2023

Uzlopak deleted the improve-perf-error-creation branch September 28, 2023 09:58

H4ad mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2023
Node errors are very slow to create nodejs/performance#40
Open

RafaelGSS mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2023
2023-10-17, Version 21.0.0 (Current) #49870
Merged

targos mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2023
v20.10.0 release proposal #50682
Merged

juanarbol mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2023
2023-12-06, N|Solid v5.0.1 Iron Release nodesource/nsolid#41
Merged

richardlau mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2024
stream: add new when constructing ERR_MULTIPLE_CALLBACK#52110
Merged

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

Uzlopak commented Sep 14, 2023

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 14, 2023

Uh oh!

aduh95 commented Sep 14, 2023• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 14, 2023

Uh oh!

rluvaton commented Sep 14, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

rluvaton commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

benjamingr commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 16, 2023• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 16, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 17, 2023

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 17, 2023

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 27, 2023

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

rluvaton commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

Uzlopak commented Sep 28, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

10 participants

aduh95 commented Sep 14, 2023•
edited
Loading

Uzlopak commented Sep 16, 2023•
edited
Loading