perf_hooks: fix stack overflow error

[aduh95]

Alternative to #54772, as suggested by #54772 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.45%. Comparing base (b8ea0e8) to head (02feba6).
⚠️ Report is 103 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #60084 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 88.43% 88.45% +0.01%  ========================================== Files 703 703 Lines 207795 207819 +24 Branches 40022 40029 +7 ========================================== + Hits 183767 183824 +57 + Misses 16021 15976 -45 - Partials 8007 8019 +12 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/per_context/primordials.js	99.19% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
lib/internal/perf/observe.js	91.55% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 32 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[cjihrig]

Is there any reason not to make this just end = 4096?

[cjihrig]

It seems like the code may be more readable if 4096 was used instead of hex.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/69700/
Benchmark CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1740/
Benchmark CI: https://github.com/aduh95/node/actions/runs/18449878864

No noticeable perf diff

 confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***) perf_hooks/bench-eventlooputil.js method='ELU_passed' n=1000000 -1.61 % ±2.96% ±3.90% ±5.01% perf_hooks/bench-eventlooputil.js method='ELU_simple' n=1000000 -1.44 % ±2.84% ±3.74% ±4.80% perf_hooks/bench-eventlooputil.js method='idleTime' n=1000000 1.97 % ±3.48% ±4.59% ±5.89% perf_hooks/histogram-clone.js n=100000 -0.33 % ±8.10% ±10.67% ±13.69% perf_hooks/histogram-create.js n=100000 0.50 % ±19.14% ±25.24% ±32.38% perf_hooks/histogram-record.js n=100000 -0.08 % ±6.60% ±8.70% ±11.16% perf_hooks/nodetiming-uvmetricsinfo.js events=1 n=1000000 -0.31 % ±5.33% ±7.03% ±9.02% perf_hooks/nodetiming-uvmetricsinfo.js events=1000 n=1000000 -0.03 % ±5.34% ±7.03% ±9.02% perf_hooks/nodetiming-uvmetricsinfo.js events=10000 n=1000000 0.16 % ±5.36% ±7.07% ±9.07% perf_hooks/now.js n=1000000 0.01 % ±4.58% ±6.04% ±7.74% perf_hooks/performance-observer.js pending=1 n=1000000 0.00 % ±18.62% ±24.54% ±31.49% perf_hooks/performance-observer.js pending=10 n=1000000 -0.01 % ±16.86% ±22.23% ±28.52% perf_hooks/resourcetiming.js observe='resource' n=1000000 0.68 % ±6.88% ±9.07% ±11.64% perf_hooks/time-origin.js method='timeOrigin' n=1000000 0.03 % ±5.16% ±6.81% ±8.74% perf_hooks/time-origin.js method='toJSON' n=1000000 0.53 % ±5.50% ±7.25% ±9.30% perf_hooks/timerfied.js observe='function' n=1000000 -0.06 % ±5.91% ±7.79% ±10.00% perf_hooks/usertiming.js observe='all' n=1000000 0.09 % ±5.87% ±7.74% ±9.93% perf_hooks/usertiming.js observe='measure' n=1000000 -0.51 % ±6.03% ±7.95% ±10.20% Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive result increases. In this case, there are 18 comparisons, you can thus expect the following amount of false-positive results: 0.90 false positives, when considering a 5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***), 0.18 false positives, when considering a 1% risk acceptance (**, ***), 0.02 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***) 

[aduh95]

Landed in 822a8c3