Js engine performance
- 1. JS Engine Performance Scutariu Paul Stirban Ionut 1
- 2. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. V8 engine – Google Chrome 16 3. SpiderMonkey - FireFox 9 4. Chakra – IE 9 5. Carakan – Opera 11 6. Case study – Chrome vs FireFox vs IE vs Opera 7. Bibliography 2
- 3. Introduction ■ The performance of javascript engine is an important feature of a web browser when developing a client web application. ■ The user will obvious be more satisfied if some elements of the application are working better. In that case he may use that browser where the javascript engine is much faster ■ By far, v8 engine used by google is faster than other browsers like FireFox, IE 9 or Opera. This will be shown is the last chapter at case study ■ So, regarding these, we will talk about in this presentation about the improvements of all these engines . Also the statistics at the end of presentation will show the results of every engine 3
- 4. V8 Engine – Google Chrome 1 ■ V8 is Google's open source JavaScript engine ■ V8 is written in C++ and is used in Google Chrome, the open source browser from Google ■ V8 can run standalone, or can be embedded into any C++ application ■ V8 increases performance by compiling JavaScript to native machine code before executing it, rather than to execute bytecode or interpreting it. Further performance increases are acheived by employing optimization techniques such as inline caching ■ With these features, JavaScript applications running within V8 are said to have an effective speed comparable to a compiled binary 4
- 5. V8 Engine – Google Chrome 2 Improvements: 1. fast property access + hidden classes function Point(x,y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } var p1 = new Point(1,2); var p2 = new Point(2,3); - most JavaScript engines would store p1 and p2 like they don’t belong to the same class, but in v8 p1 and p2 shares the same hidden class. 2. Dynamic machine code generation - javascript source code is compiled into machine code when first execution occurs. 5
- 6. V8 Engine – Google Chrome 3 Improvements: 3. Garbage collector v8 engine: - stops program execution when performing a garbage collection cycle. - processes only part of the object heap in most garbage collection cycles. This minimizes the impact of stopping the application. - always knows exactly where all objects and pointers are in memory. This avoids falsely identifying objects as pointers which can result in memory leaks. http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_caching 6
- 7. SpiderMonkey – FireFox 9 1 ■ SpiderMonkey: 30% faster ■ SpiderMonkey integrates type inference with Jaegermonkey JIT compiler to generate efficient code ■ SpiderMonkey is written in C++ and contains an interpreter, several JIT compilers (TraceMonkey, JägerMonkey, and IonMonkey), a decompiler, and a garbage collector. 7
- 8. SpiderMonkey – FireFox 9 2 TraceMonkey - TraceMonkey is the first JIT compiler written for the JavaScript language - The compiler was first released as part of SpiderMonkey in Firefox 3.5, providing "performance improvements ranging between 20 and 40 times faster" than the baseline interpreter in Firefox 3 - Instead of compiling whole functions, TraceMonkey operates by recording control flow and data types during interpreter execution. This data then informs the construction of Trace Trees, highly specialized paths of native code 8
- 9. SpiderMonkey – FireFox 9 3 JägerMonkey - JägerMonkey, internally named MethodJIT, is a whole-method JIT compiler designed to improve performance in cases where TraceMonkey cannot generate stable native code. - JägerMonkey operates very differently from other compilers in its class: while typical compilers work by constructing and optimizing a control flow graph representing the function, JägerMonkey instead operates by iterating linearly forward through SpiderMonkey bytecode, the internal function representation. Although this prohibits optimizations that require instruction reordering, JägerMonkey compilation has the advantage of being extremely fast, which is useful for JavaScript since recompilation due to changing variable types is frequent 9
- 10. SpiderMonkey – FireFox 9 4 JägerMonkey Mozilla implemented a number of critical optimizations in JägerMonkey, most importantly Polymorphic Inline Caches and Type inference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference IonMonkey IonMonkey is a compiler in the traditional sense: it translates SpiderMonkey bytecode into a control flow graph, using SSA for the intermediate representation. This architecture enables well-known optimizations from other programming languages to be used for JavaScript, including type specialization, function inlining, linear- scan register allocation, dead code elimination, and loop-invariant code motion 10
- 11. Chakra – IE 9 1 ■ Chakra is the new JScript engine developed by Microsoft for their upcoming Internet Explorer 9 (IE9) web browser ■ A distinctive feature of the engine is that it compiles scripts on a separate CPU core, parallel to the web browser ■ Chakra improves the performance of the browser and the web pages render and respond much faster 11
- 12. Chakra – IE 9 2 ■ Chakra, fundamentally changes the performance characteristics of JavaScript inside Internet Explorer 9. Chakra includes a new JavaScript compiler that compiles JavaScript source code into high- quality native machine code, a new interpreter for executing script on traditional web pages, and improvements to the JavaScript runtime and libraries. You can read more details on Chakra at TechNet. 12
- 13. Carakan – Opera 11 1 ■ So how fast is Carakan? Using a regular cross-platform switch dispatch mechanism (without any generated native code) Carakan is currently about two and a half times faster at the SunSpider benchmark than the ECMAScript engine in Presto 2.2 (Opera 10 Alpha). Since Opera is ported to many different hardware architectures, this cross-platform improvement is on its own very important ■ The native code generation in Carakan is not yet ready for full- scale testing, but the few individual benchmark tests that it is already compatible with runs between 5 and 50 times faster, so it is looking promising so far 13
- 14. Carakan – Opera 11 2 Improvements: 1. Automatic object classification - A major improvement over this engine is in the representation of ECMAScript objects. Each object is assigned a class that collects various information about the object, such as its prototype and the order and names of some or all of its properties - Class assignment is naturally very dynamic, since ECMAScript is a very dynamic language, but it is organized such that objects with the same prototype and the same set of properties are assigned the same class 14
- 15. Carakan – Opera 11 3 Improvements: 1. Automatic object classification - This representation allows compact storage of individual objects, since most of the complicated structures representing the object's properties are stored in the class, where they are shared with all other objects with the same class. In real-world programs with many objects of the same classes, this can save significant amounts of memory. - For two objects with the same class, if the lookup of a property "X" on the first object gave the result Y, we know that the same lookup on the second object will also give the result Y. We use this to cache the result of individual property lookups in ECMAScript programs, which greatly speeds up code that contains many property reads or writes 15
- 16. Carakan – Opera 11 4 Improvements: 2. Native code generation - Although engine's bytecode instruction set permits the implementation of a significantly faster bytecode execution engine, there is still significant overhead involved in executing simple ECMAScript code, such as loops performing integer arithmetics, in a bytecode interpreter. - In addition to generating native code from regular ECMAScript code, we also generate native code that performs the matching of simple regular expressions. This improves performance a lot when searching for matches of simple regular expressions in long strings. For sufficiently long strings, this actually makes searching for a substring using a regular expression faster than the same search using String.prototype.indexOf. For shorter strings, the speed is limited by the overhead of compiling the regular expression 16
- 17. Carakan – Opera 11 5 Improvements: 3. Register-based bytecode - The last couple of generations of Opera's ECMAScript engine have used a stack-based bytecode instruction set. This type of instruction set is based around a stack of values, where most instructions "pop" input operands from the value stack, process them, and "push" the result back onto the value stack. Some instructions simply push values onto the value stack, and others rearrange the values on the stack. This gives compact bytecode programs and is easy to generate bytecode for 17
- 18. Case study – Chrome vs FireFox vs IE vs Opera 1 Now we will se some performance statistics using v8 and kraken benchmarks. V8 benchmark:http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v5/run Score 2500 2000 1500 1000 2085 1354 500 959 629 0 IE 9 Opera 11.6 FireFox 9 Chrome 16 18
- 19. Case study – Chrome vs FireFox vs IE vs Opera 2 Now we will se some performance statistics using v8 and kraken benchmarks. V8 benchmark:http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v5/run Browser Speed Google Chrome 16 2085 ms Opera 11.6 959 ms FireFox 9 1354 ms IE 9 629 ms The biggest score indicates the browser’s engine with the best performance 19
- 20. Case study – Chrome vs FireFox vs IE vs Opera 3 Now we will se some performance statistics using v8 and kraken benchmarks. Kraken benchmark:http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/ Time in milliseconds 60000 50000 40000 30000 55878 20000 42685 10000 13399 15315.4 0 Chrome 16 FireFox 9 Opera 11.6 IE 9 20
- 21. Case study – Chrome vs FireFox vs IE vs Opera 4 Now we will se some performance statistics using v8 and kraken benchmarks. Kraken benchmark:http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/ Browser Speed Google Chrome 16 13399.3ms +/- 1.8% FireFox 9 15315.4ms +/- 0.6% Opera 11.6 42685.0ms +/- 1.2% IE 9 55878.0ms +/- 1.8% Now time is being calculated in miliseconds and obvious the lowest is the best engine As we can see, Google’s v8 is the best engine by far, and the statistics show this. 21