Sometimes the layout might introduce nodes into the scenegraph. If these
new nodes also need laid out, CSS is applied to those nodes since style
can affect layout. I would expect CSS overhead to be very small unless
there are many new nodes being added to the scene
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756 notwithstanding)
On 3/15/16 12:14 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
Is there a guideline somewhere that explains how to read the output of the
Pulse Logger?
For example, what do the two times represent in this PULSE line:
PULSE: 569 [1459ms:270ms]
At first I guessed is that it was PULSE: <current_pulse_#> [<layout
time>ms:<time_for_everything_else>]
but that doesn’t seem to hold up.
What does the first (usually negative) number mean in the Layout Pass line?
T23 (-1563 +1563ms): Layout Pass
T23 (1 +4ms): Layout Pass
I’ve noticed that the output has some notable differences between my Windows
machine and my Mac. On the Mac I don’t seem to be getting the same sort of CSS
Pass information. I get only one “CSS Pass” per pulse and it is almost always
telling me something near 0ms:
PULSE: 509 [1404ms:286ms]
T23 (-1404 +1404ms): Layout Pass
T23 (0 +1ms): CSS Pass
T23 (1 +6ms): Layout Pass
T23 (7 +4ms): Update bounds
T23 (11 +0ms): Waiting for previous rendering
T23 (11 +0ms): Copy state to render graph
but on Windows I get two CSS Passes, one is usually 0ms, the other makes more
sense (I’m investigating a performance issue on a Scene with >10k nodes, so
some notable amount of CSS time is expected.):
PULSE: 2578 [423ms:3362ms]
T35 (-423 +423ms): Layout Pass
T35 (0 +0ms): CSS Pass
T35 (0 +0ms): Layout Pass
T35 (0 +2725ms): CSS Pass
T35 (2725 +402ms): Layout Pass
T35 (3128 +25ms): Update bounds
…
This seems a bit strange, as I would think Layout and CSS would not be platform
specific. Both systems are running 8u72.
I’m also finding Layout times on the Mac are higher than I expected - maybe
some CSS time has been rolled in to that log line on the Mac?
Regards,
Scott
