Company logo
  • Jobs
  • Bootcamp
  • About Us
  • For professionals
    • Home
    • Jobs
    • Courses
    • Questions
    • Teachers
    • Bootcamp
  • For business
    • Home
    • Our process
    • Plans
    • Assessments
    • Payroll
    • Blog
    • Sales
    • Calculator

0

87
Views
How does hidden classes really avoid dynamic lookups?

So we have all heard that v8 uses the thing called hidden classes where when many objects have the same shape, they just store a pointer to the shape struct which stores fixed offsets. I have heard this a million time, and I very much get how this reduces memory usage by A LOT (not having to store a map for each one is amazing) and potentially because of that a bit faster performance.

However I still don't understand how it avoids dynamic lookup. The only thing I have heard is storing a cache between a string (field name) and a fixed offset, and checking it every time, but if there's a cache miss (which is likely to happen) there will still be a dyanmic lookup.

Everyone says that this is almost as fast as C++ field access (which are just a mov instruction usually), however this 1 field access cache isn't even close.

Look at the following function:

function getx(o)
{
    return o.x;
}

How will v8 make the access of the x field so fast and avoid dynamic lookup?

7 months ago · Juan Pablo Isaza
1 answers
Answer question

0

(V8 developer here.)

The key is that hidden classes allow caching. So, certainly, a few dynamic lookups will still be required. But thanks to caching, they don't have to be repeated every single time a property access like o.x is executed.

Essentially, the first time your example function getx is called, it'll have to do a full property lookup, and it'll cache both the hidden class that was queried and the result of the lookup. On subsequent calls, it'll simply check the incoming o's hidden class against the cached data, and if it matches, it uses the cached information about how to access the property. Of course, on mismatch, it has to fall back to a dynamic lookup again. (In reality it's a bit more complicated because of additional tradeoffs that are involved, but that's the basic idea.)

So if things go well, a single dynamic lookup is sufficient for an arbitrary number of calls to such a function. In practice, things go well often enough that if you started with a very simple JS engine that didn't do any such tricks, and you added caching of dynamic lookup results, you could expect approximately a 10x performance improvement across the board. Adding an optimizing compiler can then take that idea one step further and embed cached results right into the optimized code; that can easily give another 10x improvement and approach C-like performance: code still needs to contain hidden class checks, but on successful check can read properties with a single instruction. (This is also why JS engines can't just "optimize everything immediately" even if they wanted to: optimization crucially depends on well-populated caches.)

7 months ago · Juan Pablo Isaza Report
Answer question
Find remote jobs