stream: use the ring buffer for WHATWG stream request queues

[mcollina]

The [[queue]] backing the controllers is now a ring buffer, but the read/write request queues (readRequests, readIntoRequests, writeRequests) were left as plain arrays consumed with ArrayPrototypeShift. Back them with the same Queue, materialized lazily from the shared empty queue so acquiring a reader or constructing a writer allocates no request storage until a read/write parks.

pipe-to: +4.7% to +9.4% (all 16 configs, ***)
readable-read type=byob: +2.3% (**)
parked reader.read() loop: +15%, writer.write() loop: +11% (local harness)

Follow-up to #64312.

[mertcanaltin]

Need a signature for first commit message.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.23%. Comparing base (8a3b11c) to head (e65f9be).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #64431 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.24% 90.23% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 741 741 Lines 241384 241391 +7 Branches 45480 45487 +7 ==========================================
- Hits 217844 217827 -17 - Misses 15097 15129 +32 + Partials 8443 8435 -8 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/webstreams/readablestream.js	98.19% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/internal/webstreams/util.js	97.71% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/internal/webstreams/writablestream.js	99.50% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 40 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/74761/

[github-actions]

Benchmark GHA (webstreams): https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/29233460863

Results

[!WARNING]
Do not take GHA benchmark results as face value, always confirm them
using a dedicated machine, e.g. Jenkins CI.

Benchmark results:

 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***)
webstreams/creation.js kind='ReadableStream.tee' n=50000 0.64 % ±6.98% ±9.19% ±11.80%
webstreams/creation.js kind='ReadableStream' n=50000 0.75 % ±7.98% ±10.51% ±13.49%
webstreams/creation.js kind='ReadableStreamBYOBReader' n=50000 3.30 % ±6.13% ±8.08% ±10.36%
webstreams/creation.js kind='ReadableStreamDefaultReader' n=50000 1.63 % ±7.61% ±10.03% ±12.86%
webstreams/creation.js kind='TransformStream' n=50000 -0.51 % ±7.00% ±9.23% ±11.84%
webstreams/creation.js kind='WritableStream' n=50000 -0.63 % ±7.84% ±10.33% ±13.26%
webstreams/js_transfer.js n=10000 payload='ReadableStream' -0.43 % ±9.64% ±12.71% ±16.30%
webstreams/js_transfer.js n=10000 payload='TransformStream' 0.77 % ±9.28% ±12.23% ±15.70%
webstreams/js_transfer.js n=10000 payload='WritableStream' 0.83 % ±9.45% ±12.46% ±15.98%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=1024 highWaterMarkR=1024 n=500000 * 7.38 % ±7.34% ±9.68% ±12.42%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=1024 highWaterMarkR=2048 n=500000 * 8.21 % ±7.21% ±9.51% ±12.20%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=1024 highWaterMarkR=4096 n=500000 * 7.71 % ±7.29% ±9.61% ±12.33%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=1024 highWaterMarkR=512 n=500000 7.03 % ±7.25% ±9.56% ±12.27%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=2048 highWaterMarkR=1024 n=500000 * 7.39 % ±7.26% ±9.57% ±12.28%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=2048 highWaterMarkR=2048 n=500000 * 8.57 % ±7.26% ±9.57% ±12.28%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=2048 highWaterMarkR=4096 n=500000 * 7.49 % ±7.15% ±9.43% ±12.10%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=2048 highWaterMarkR=512 n=500000 * 7.74 % ±7.29% ±9.61% ±12.33%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=4096 highWaterMarkR=1024 n=500000 * 7.58 % ±7.30% ±9.62% ±12.35%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=4096 highWaterMarkR=2048 n=500000 * 9.04 % ±7.43% ±9.80% ±12.57%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=4096 highWaterMarkR=4096 n=500000 * 9.27 % ±7.45% ±9.82% ±12.61%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=4096 highWaterMarkR=512 n=500000 * 8.51 % ±7.42% ±9.78% ±12.55%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=512 highWaterMarkR=1024 n=500000 * 7.52 % ±7.21% ±9.51% ±12.20%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=512 highWaterMarkR=2048 n=500000 * 8.04 % ±7.35% ±9.68% ±12.42%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=512 highWaterMarkR=4096 n=500000 * 8.19 % ±7.32% ±9.64% ±12.38%
webstreams/pipe-to.js highWaterMarkW=512 highWaterMarkR=512 n=500000 6.34 % ±7.18% ±9.46% ±12.14%
webstreams/readable-async-iterator.js type='bytes' n=100000 4.92 % ±9.89% ±13.04% ±16.73%
webstreams/readable-async-iterator.js type='normal' n=100000 0.64 % ±7.19% ±9.47% ±12.15%
webstreams/readable-read-buffered.js bufferSize=1 n=100000 -0.84 % ±6.44% ±8.48% ±10.89%
webstreams/readable-read-buffered.js bufferSize=10 n=100000 -0.49 % ±5.97% ±7.87% ±10.10%
webstreams/readable-read-buffered.js bufferSize=100 n=100000 -1.56 % ±6.02% ±7.94% ±10.18%
webstreams/readable-read-buffered.js bufferSize=1000 n=100000 -0.08 % ±6.24% ±8.23% ±10.56%
webstreams/readable-read.js type='byob' n=100000 0.48 % ±7.52% ±9.91% ±12.72%
webstreams/readable-read.js type='normal' n=100000 ** 7.82 % ±5.83% ±7.69% ±9.87%
Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case, there are 33 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
1.65 false positives, when considering a 5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
0.33 false positives, when considering a 1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
0.03 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

[!WARNING]
Do not take GHA benchmark results as face value, always confirm them
using a dedicated machine, e.g. Jenkins CI.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Landed in ace91de