fix(wasm): turbo fs watcher should not ignore node_modules

[xusd320]

Enable watcher for node_modules in turbo_task_fs

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @xusd320, 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 addresses a critical issue in the file system watcher by updating the 'next.js' submodule. The update ensures that the 'turbo_task_fs' watcher now correctly includes 'node_modules' in its monitoring scope, which is essential for accurate dependency tracking and development workflows. This change improves the reliability of the build process by preventing overlooked changes within project dependencies.

Highlights

• Submodule Update: The 'next.js' submodule has been updated from commit '99118832ade1f5fe11d747ccb59ab4038d8e1a32' to 'b30934dbfaabad1f52dc32abb2838b2aad223b9b'.
• Watcher Configuration Fix: This submodule update specifically enables the 'turbo_task_fs' watcher to correctly monitor 'node_modules' directories, resolving an issue where they were previously ignored.

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 updates the next.js subproject commit to b30934dbfaabad1f52dc32abb2838b2aad223b9b. This change is intended to address an issue where the turbo fs watcher was ignoring node_modules, as indicated by the pull request title and description. The update seems to correctly integrate the fix from the turbo_task_fs subproject.

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Benchmark Report (with-antd)

🚀 Utoopack Performance Report: Async Task Scheduling Overhead Analysis

Report ID: utoopack_performance_report_20260129_120828
Generated: 2026-01-29 12:08:28
Trace File: trace_antd.json (1.5GB, 8.00M events)
Test Project: Unknown Project

---

📊 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the performance of Utoopack/Turbopack, covering the full spectrum of the Performance Analysis Protocol (P0-P4).

Key Findings

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total Wall Time	10,134.4 ms	Baseline
Total Thread Work	88,326.7 ms	~8.7x parallelism
Thread Utilization	96.8%	✅ Good
turbo_tasks::function Invocations	3,883,544	Total count
Meaningful Tasks (≥ 10µs)	1,514,071	(39.0% of total)
Tracing Noise (< 10µs)	2,369,473	(61.0% of total)

Workload Distribution by Tier

Category	Tasks	Total Time (ms)	% of Work
P0: Runtime/Resolution	1,036,880	53,408.1	60.5%
P1: I/O & Heavy Tasks	36,824	3,493.0	4.0%
P3: Asset Pipeline	27,787	4,383.3	5.0%
P4: Bridge/Interop	0	0.0	0.0%
Other	412,580	19,617.8	22.2%

---

⚡ Parallelization Analysis (P0-P2)

Thread Utilization

Metric	Value
Number of Threads	9
Total Thread Work	88,326.7 ms
Avg Work per Thread	9,814.1 ms
Theoretical Parallelism	8.72x
Thread Utilization	96.8%

Assessment: With 9 threads available, achieving 8.7x parallelism indicates reasonable throughput.

---

📈 Top 20 Tasks (Global)

These are the most significant tasks by total duration:

Total (ms)	Count	Avg (µs)	% Work	Task Name
44,413.5	863,070	51.5	50.3%	turbo_tasks::function
8,436.6	123,359	68.4	9.6%	task execution completed
6,372.9	80,946	78.7	7.2%	turbo_tasks::resolve_call
2,868.8	31,917	89.9	3.2%	analyze ecmascript module
2,169.7	66,966	32.4	2.5%	precompute code generation
2,078.6	67,842	30.6	2.4%	resolving
1,784.2	35,472	50.3	2.0%	module
1,611.1	20,336	79.2	1.8%	effects processing
1,519.8	11,576	131.3	1.7%	process parse result
1,152.3	6,428	179.3	1.3%	parse ecmascript
1,091.9	35,668	30.6	1.2%	internal resolving
1,081.3	31,306	34.5	1.2%	process module
848.7	28,315	30.0	1.0%	resolve_relative_request
611.6	1,912	319.9	0.7%	analyze variable values
487.7	15,477	31.5	0.6%	resolve_module_request
482.6	19,037	25.3	0.5%	handle_after_resolve_plugins
438.0	1,943	225.4	0.5%	swc_parse
434.5	10,931	39.8	0.5%	code generation
384.4	4,209	91.3	0.4%	read file
376.2	17,422	21.6	0.4%	resolved

---

🔍 Deep Dive by Tier

🔴 Tier 1: Runtime & Resolution (P0)

Focus: Task scheduling and dependency resolution.

Metric	Value	Status
Total Scheduling Time	53,408.1 ms	⚠️ High
Resolution Hotspots	9 tasks	🔍 Check Top Tasks

Potential P0 Issues:

• Low thread utilization (96.8%) suggests critical path serialization or lock contention.
• 2,369,473 tasks < 10µs (61.0%) contribute to scheduler pressure.

🟠 Tier 2: Physical & Resource Barriers (P1)

Focus: Hardware utilization, I/O, and heavy monoliths.

Metric	Value	Status
I/O Work (Estimated)	3,493.0 ms	✅ Healthy
Large Tasks (> 100ms)	19	🚨 Critical

Potential P1 Issues:

• 19 tasks exceed 100ms. These "Heavy Monoliths" are prime candidates for splitting.

🟡 Tier 3: Architecture & Asset Pipeline (P2-P3)

Focus: Global state and transformation pipeline.

Metric	Value	Status
Asset Processing (P3)	4,383.3 ms	5.0% of work
Bridge Overhead (P4)	0.0 ms	✅ Low

---

💡 Recommendations (Prioritized P0-P2)

🚨 Critical: (P0) Improvement

Problem: 96.8% thread utilization.
Action:

1. Profile lock contention if utilization < 60%.
2. Convert sequential await chains to try_join.

⚠️ High Priority: (P1) Optimization

Problem: 19 heavy tasks detected.
Action:

1. Identify module-level bottlenecks (e.g., barrel files).
2. Optimize I/O batching for metadata.

⚠️ Medium Priority: (P3) Pipeline Efficiency

Action:

1. Review transformation logic for frequently changed assets.
2. Minimize cross-language serialization (P4) if overhead exceeds 10%.

---

📐 Diagnostic Signal Summary

Signal	Status	Finding
Tracing Noise (P0)	⚠️ Significant	61.0% of tasks < 10µs
Thread Utilization (P0)	✅ Good	96.8% utilization
Heavy Monoliths (P1)	⚠️ Detected	19 tasks > 100ms
Asset Pipeline (P3)	🔍 Review	4,383.3 ms total
Bridge/Interop (P4)	✅ Low	0.0 ms total

---

🎯 Action Items (Comprehensive P0-P4)

1. [P0] Investigate task scheduling gaps for incremental gains
2. [P1] Breakdown heavy monolith tasks (>100ms) to improve granularity
3. [P1] Review I/O patterns for potential batching opportunities
4. [P3] Optimize asset transformation pipeline hot-spots
5. [P4] Reduce "chatty" bridge operations if interop overhead is significant

---

Report generated by Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent on 2026-01-29
Following: Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent Protocol