chore(pack): build log perf

[fireairforce]

Summary

perf output log.

Test Plan

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request primarily refines the logging output for build processes, making it more succinct by reducing verbosity in completion messages. Additionally, it organizes and defines new TypeScript interfaces for internal error handling mechanisms, improving the clarity and structure of the API definitions for Turbopack callbacks.

Highlights

• Performance Logging: Simplified the build completion log messages in the Rust pack-napi crate to provide a more concise output, focusing on the total compilation time rather than detailed counts of apps and libraries.
• Error Handling API Definition: Introduced and relocated TypeScript interface definitions (TurbopackInternalErrorOpts and NapiTurbopackCallbacksJsObject) related to internal Turbopack error handling within the pack package's binding definitions.

Changelog

• crates/pack-napi/src/pack_api/project.rs
  • Simplified the tracing::info! log message for project entrypoint writing.
  • Replaced a detailed tracing::info! log for pack task completion with a concise 'Compile done' message.
• packages/pack/src/binding.d.ts
  • Added new TypeScript interfaces TurbopackInternalErrorOpts and NapiTurbopackCallbacksJsObject for internal error handling.
  • Removed a duplicate definition of TurbopackInternalErrorOpts from a later section of the file.

Activity

• No human activity has been recorded on this pull request yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request aims to improve logging performance. It simplifies a log message in project.rs by removing details about compiled apps and libraries. While this might offer a minor performance gain, it reduces observability. I've suggested restoring this information in a more readable format. Additionally, a change in binding.d.ts has introduced a duplicate TypeScript interface definition, which will cause compilation errors and needs to be fixed.

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Benchmark Report (with-antd)

Utoopack Performance Report (Intelligent)

Report ID: utoopack_performance_report_20260311_035952
Generated: 2026-03-11 03:59:52
Trace File: trace_antd.json (0.6GB, 3.35M events)
Test Project: examples/with-antd

---

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total Wall Time	8,412.5 ms	Baseline
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	27,480.9 ms	Non-overlapping busy time
Effective Parallelism	3.3x	thread_work / wall_time
Working Threads	5	Threads with actual spans
Thread Utilization	65.3%	🆗 Average
Total Spans	1,674,327	All B/E + X events
Meaningful Spans (>= 10us)	568,737	(34.0% of total)
Tracing Noise (< 10us)	1,105,590	(66.0% of total)

Workload Distribution by Tier

Category	Tasks	Total Time (ms)	% of Thread Work
P0: Runtime/Resolution	0	0.0	0.0%
P1: I/O & Heavy Tasks	39,687	3,837.2	14.0%
P3: Asset Pipeline	36,585	3,466.7	12.6%
P4: Bridge/Interop	0	0.0	0.0%
Other	492,465	22,483.6	81.8%

---

🤖 AI Intelligent Attributions

New section mapping granular tasks to bottlenecks.

Top 10 Batching Candidates

These highly-called tasks are dominated by a single parent. If the parent can batch them into one call, it drastically reduces scheduler overhead.

Task Name	Count	Top Caller (Attribution)	Avg	P95	Total Time
analyze ecmascript module	36,792	process module (76%)	102.3 us	0.28 ms	3,764.0 ms

---

Top 20 Tasks by Total Duration

Total (ms)	Count	Avg (us)	P95 (ms)	Max (ms)	% Work	Task Name	Top Caller
8,162.4	207,391	39.4	0.1	10.3	29.7%	module	write all entrypoints to disk (1%)
4,042.0	70,451	57.4	0.1	208.7	14.7%	process module	module (16%)
3,764.0	36,792	102.3	0.3	208.6	13.7%	analyze ecmascript module	process module (76%)
2,725.2	24,699	110.3	0.4	62.7	9.9%	code generation	chunking (6%)
1,922.8	68,929	27.9	0.0	10.3	7.0%	resolving	module (29%)
1,765.3	64,329	27.4	0.0	5.6	6.4%	internal resolving	resolving (31%)
1,397.3	15,051	92.8	0.2	50.9	5.1%	chunking	write all entrypoints to disk (0%)
1,313.7	31,596	41.6	0.1	8.6	4.8%	precompute code generation	code generation (32%)
1,176.4	8,515	138.2	0.1	242.8	4.3%	write all entrypoints to disk	None (0%)
1,095.2	8,090	135.4	0.5	85.5	4.0%	parse ecmascript	analyze ecmascript module (26%)
1,055.9	13,286	79.5	0.3	110.4	3.8%	compute async module info	chunking (0%)
625.1	11,316	55.2	0.1	46.4	2.3%	compute async chunks	compute async chunks (0%)
270.3	1,936	139.6	0.4	16.2	1.0%	generate source map	code generation (96%)
73.6	652	113.0	0.0	22.8	0.3%	compute binding usage info	write all entrypoints to disk (0%)
64.7	2,167	29.9	0.0	3.4	0.2%	read file	parse ecmascript (91%)
64.0	186	344.0	1.1	19.6	0.2%	make production chunks	chunking (2%)
51.2	1,872	27.3	0.0	7.1	0.2%	collect mergeable modules	compute merged modules (0%)
42.4	14	3027.3	11.3	13.1	0.2%	apply effects	write all entrypoints to disk (7%)
41.7	13	3207.5	11.4	13.1	0.2%	write file	apply effects (100%)
41.3	608	67.9	0.1	4.1	0.2%	async reference	write all entrypoints to disk (1%)

---

Duration Distribution

Range	Count	Percentage
< 10us (noise)	1,105,590	66.0%
10us - 100us	542,497	32.4%
100us - 1ms	21,813	1.3%
1ms - 10ms	4,335	0.3%
10ms - 100ms	84	0.0%
> 100ms	8	0.0%

---

Action Items

1. [P0] Use Batching Candidates to pinpoint specific files needing try_join or reduced #[turbo_tasks::function] limits.
2. [P1] Inspect P95 (ms) for heavy monolith tasks. Focus on long-tail outliers rather than averages.

Report generated by Intelligent Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent