feat(pack): napi add pluginRuntimeStratefy type

[fireairforce]

Summary

add a napi type for turbopack-node to control runtime strategy.

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 enhances the configuration capabilities of the packing process by adding a new option to control the runtime strategy for NAPI plugins within Turbopack-node. This allows for explicit selection between workerThreads and childProcesses, providing greater flexibility in how plugins are executed.

Highlights

• NAPI Plugin Runtime Strategy: Introduced a new type, pluginRuntimeStrategy, to the ConfigComplete interface, enabling the selection of plugin runtime execution methods between "workerThreads" and "childProcesses" for Turbopack-node.

Changelog

• packages/pack-shared/src/config.ts
  • Added pluginRuntimeStrategy property to the ConfigComplete interface.

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 adds a new pluginRuntimeStrategy option to the configuration, allowing control over the runtime strategy for plugins. The change itself is correct, but the corresponding JSON schema in packages/pack/config_schema.json should also be updated to include this new property for validation and autocompletion. Additionally, there is a minor typo in the pull request title ('Stratefy' should be 'Strategy').

[gemini-code-assist]

This new configuration option should also be added to the project's JSON schema. Please update packages/pack/config_schema.json to include pluginRuntimeStrategy. This ensures that users benefit from validation and autocompletion for this new setting in their configuration files.

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Benchmark Report (with-antd)

Utoopack Performance Report (Intelligent)

Report ID: utoopack_performance_report_20260311_043247
Generated: 2026-03-11 04:32:47
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	8,390.7 ms	Baseline
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	27,465.0 ms	Non-overlapping busy time
Effective Parallelism	3.3x	thread_work / wall_time
Working Threads	5	Threads with actual spans
Thread Utilization	65.5%	🆗 Average
Total Spans	1,674,316	All B/E + X events
Meaningful Spans (>= 10us)	565,437	(33.8% of total)
Tracing Noise (< 10us)	1,108,879	(66.2% 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	39,619	3,765.1	13.7%
P3: Asset Pipeline	35,623	3,280.3	11.9%
P4: Bridge/Interop	0	0.0	0.0%
Other	490,195	22,735.0	82.8%

---

🤖 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	36,722	process module (76%)	100.4 us	0.28 ms	3,687.8 ms

---

Top 20 Tasks by Total Duration

Total (ms)	Count	Avg (us)	P95 (ms)	Max (ms)	% Work	Task Name	Top Caller
8,363.7	206,932	40.4	0.1	12.3	30.5%	module	write all entrypoints to disk (1%)
4,146.5	70,173	59.1	0.1	194.6	15.1%	process module	module (16%)
3,687.8	36,722	100.4	0.3	193.4	13.4%	analyze ecmascript module	process module (76%)
2,780.6	24,667	112.7	0.4	109.4	10.1%	code generation	chunking (6%)
1,959.5	68,515	28.6	0.0	7.7	7.1%	resolving	module (29%)
1,790.5	63,925	28.0	0.0	9.6	6.5%	internal resolving	resolving (31%)
1,337.4	14,678	91.1	0.2	41.5	4.9%	chunking	write all entrypoints to disk (0%)
1,299.7	30,942	42.0	0.1	13.2	4.7%	precompute code generation	code generation (32%)
1,065.8	8,611	123.8	0.1	227.8	3.9%	write all entrypoints to disk	None (0%)
1,046.9	13,082	80.0	0.4	106.9	3.8%	compute async module info	chunking (0%)
1,016.9	8,058	126.2	0.5	69.1	3.7%	parse ecmascript	analyze ecmascript module (26%)
566.8	10,743	52.8	0.1	41.8	2.1%	compute async chunks	compute async chunks (0%)
286.9	1,937	148.1	0.4	17.5	1.0%	generate source map	code generation (96%)
65.5	2,165	30.3	0.0	4.0	0.2%	read file	parse ecmascript (91%)
65.0	674	96.4	0.0	18.2	0.2%	compute binding usage info	write all entrypoints to disk (0%)
57.1	201	283.8	0.5	21.1	0.2%	make production chunks	chunking (2%)
51.8	1,877	27.6	0.0	7.2	0.2%	collect mergeable modules	compute merged modules (0%)
34.1	14	2434.0	10.2	11.0	0.1%	apply effects	write all entrypoints to disk (7%)
32.8	13	2520.4	10.2	11.0	0.1%	write file	apply effects (100%)
30.2	5	6045.2	18.7	21.1	0.1%	compute merged modules	make production chunks (100%)

---

Duration Distribution

Range	Count	Percentage
< 10us (noise)	1,108,879	66.2%
10us - 100us	538,945	32.2%
100us - 1ms	22,011	1.3%
1ms - 10ms	4,390	0.3%
10ms - 100ms	85	0.0%
> 100ms	6	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