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