On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:48:52 GMT, Ajit Ghaisas <aghai...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:14:04 GMT, Ajit Ghaisas <aghai...@openjdk.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:33:05 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:45:04 GMT, Ajit Ghaisas <aghai...@openjdk.org> wrote: >>> >>>> **Issue :** >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193445 >>>> >>>> **Background :** >>>> The CSS performance improvement done in >>>> [JDK-8151756](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756) had to be >>>> backed out due to functional regressions reported in >>>> [JDK-8185709](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185709), >>>> [JDK-8183100](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183100) and >>>> [JDK-8168951](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168951). >>>> Refer to [JDK-8183100](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183100) >>>> for more details on this backout. >>>> >>>> **Description :** >>>> This PR reintroduces the CSS performance improvement fix done in >>>> [JDK-8151756](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756) while >>>> addressing the functional regressions that were reported in >>>> [JDK-8185709](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185709), >>>> [JDK-8183100](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183100) and >>>> [JDK-8168951](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168951). >>>> For ease of review, I have made two separate commits - >>>> 1) [Commit >>>> 1](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/34/commits/d964675ebc2a42f2fd6928b773819502683f2334) >>>> - Reintroduces the CSS performance improvement fix done in >>>> [JDK-8151756](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756) - most of >>>> the patch applied cleanly. >>>> 2) [Commit 2 >>>> ](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/34/commits/12ea8220a730ff8d98d520ce870691d54f0de00f)- >>>> fixes the functional regressions keeping performance improvement intact + >>>> adds a system test >>>> >>>> **Root Cause :** >>>> CSS performance improvement fix proposed in [JDK-8151756 >>>> ](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756)correctly avoids the >>>> redundant CSS reapplication to children of a Parent. >>>> What was missed earlier in [JDK-8151756 >>>> ](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756) fix : "CSS >>>> reapplication to the Parent itself”. >>>> This missing piece was the root cause of all functional regressions >>>> reported against >>>> [JDK-8151756](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151756) >>>> >>>> **Fix :** >>>> Fixed the identified root cause. See commit 2. >>>> >>>> **Testing :** >>>> 1. All passing unit tests continue to pass >>>> 2. New system test (based on >>>> [JDK-8209830](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209830)) added in >>>> this PR - fails before this fix and passes after the fix >>>> 3. System test JDK8183100Test continues to pass >>>> 4. All test cases attached to regressions >>>> [JDK-8185709](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185709), >>>> [JDK-8183100](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183100) and >>>> [JDK-8168951](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168951) pass with >>>> this fix >>>> >>>> In addition, testing by community with specific CSS performance / >>>> functionality will be helpful. >>>> >>>> ---------------- >>>> >>>> Commits: >>>> - 12ea8220: Fix for functional regressions of JDK-8151756 + add a sytem >>>> test >>>> - d964675e: Reintroduce JDK-8151756 CSS performance fix >>>> >>>> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/34/files >>>> Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jfx/34/webrev.00 >>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193445 >>>> Stats: 121 lines in 5 files changed: 104 ins; 0 del; 17 mod >>>> Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/34.diff >>>> Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/34/head:pull/34 >>> >>> While we are still discussing the fix itself, I added a few comments on the >>> new test. It generally looks good, but should be run on a variety of >>> systems, with and without the fix (once we have a final fix that we are >>> satisfied with). >>> >>> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/CSSPerf_JDK8193445Test.java >>> line 26: >>> >>>> 25: >>>> 26: package test.robot.javafx.scene; >>>> 27: >>> >>> There is no need for this test to require robot. I recommend moving it to >>> `test.javafx.scene` (and not inherit from `VisualTestBase`). >>> >>> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/CSSPerf_JDK8193445Test.java >>> line 55: >>> >>>> 54: >>>> 55: public class CSSPerf_JDK8193445Test extends VisualTestBase { >>>> 56: >>> >>> We have moved away from putting the bug ID in the test class name, so I >>> recommend renaming it. >>> >>> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/CSSPerf_JDK8193445Test.java >>> line 78: >>> >>>> 77: HBox hbox = new HBox(); >>>> 78: for (int i = 0; i < 300; i++) { >>>> 79: hbox = new HBox(new Text("y"), hbox); >>> >>> In my testing on various machines, the bug is more pronounced, and less >>> prone to system differences with `500` nodes instead of `300`. >>> >>> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/CSSPerf_JDK8193445Test.java >>> line 94: >>> >>>> 93: // It is good enough to catch the regression in performance, >>>> if any >>>> 94: assertTrue("Time to add 300 Nodes is more than 400 mSec", mSec >>>> < 400); >>>> 95: } >>> >>> If you increase the number of nodes to `500` then I recommend bumping the >>> time threshold to `800` msec in case it is run on a very slow system. >> >>> I think inverting the call is fine. That's what I did in my fix >>> ([DeanWookey/openjdk-jfx@65a1ed8](https://github.com/DeanWookey/openjdk-jfx/commit/65a1ed82bce262294f1969e9a12e1126ec8a1ec6)) >>> and we've been testing that out thoroughly for over a year. >>> >>> It's as if you are adding nodes 1 by 1 to the scene graph, something we >>> know works and is fast. My change tries to emulate that more accurately to >>> avoid side effects. Theoretically, we should be able to do better when many >>> nodes are added at once because we have all the information upfront. >>> >>> The one side effect I can see by only applying commit 2 is that the first >>> call of reapplyCSS() calls reapplyCss on every node in the tree and that >>> sets the cssFlag = CssFlags.UPDATE;. The subsequent calls will hit this in >>> reapplyCSS(): >>> >>> ``` >>> if (cssFlag == CssFlags.UPDATE) { >>> cssFlag = CssFlags.REAPPLY; >>> notifyParentsOfInvalidatedCSS(); >>> return; >>> } >>> ``` >>> >>> and return without doing all the unnecessary work. As a result however, >>> instead of leaving with cssFlag = CssFlags.UPDATE, all the nodes leave with >>> CssFlags.REAPPLY. That might cause an unnecessary css pass later? >>> >>> Doing it in the order it happens now, that check for the update flag >>> shouldn't be true because its bottom up. >> >> It is a good observation about cssFlag. I have not seen any side effect with >> the limited testing that I have done. It may be possible that the >> "unnecessary css pass later" scenario is not covered by the test cases that >> we have. > >> Perhaps short-circuiting the call to reapplyCss() from the reapplyCSS() >> method is the thing to do. > > This comment from @dsgrieve got me interested. I checked the test code > JDK-8151756 with cssFlags logged, it became evident that the cssFlag gets set > to DIRTY_BRANCH for every parent and reapplyCss() gets invoked for each of > the children. This is the exact redundant processing. > > > Test from JDK-8151756 with additional one level of Node hierarchy. > > Parent1<--Parent2<--Parent3<--Rectangle (leaf child) > > Log from test program ---- > Parent 1 : VBox@1d9e402b > Parent 2 : VBox@4cc2dcce > Parent 3 : VBox@4cc2dcce > Rectangle > > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@1d9e402b ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > REAPPLY_CSS called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN** > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@19234c0d ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH** > reapplyCss called for : VBox@19234c0d ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@4cc2dcce ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH** > reapplyCss called for : VBox@4cc2dcce ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH > reapplyCss called for : VBox@19234c0d ----- CssFlags.UPDATE > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@1d9e402b ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH** > reapplyCss called for : VBox@1d9e402b ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH > reapplyCss called for : VBox@4cc2dcce ----- CssFlags.UPDATE > reapplyCss called for : VBox@19234c0d ----- CssFlags.UPDATE > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > > > Proposed New Fix : > ------------------- > I added a simple check to avoid reapplyCss() call for each Node with > DIRTY_BRANCH cssFlag. Here is the patch - > > diff --git a/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Node.java > b/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Node.java > index 877e0fd6c8..8606dfb575 100644 > --- a/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Node.java > +++ b/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Node.java > @@ -9416,7 +9416,7 @@ public abstract class Node implements EventTarget, > Styleable { > if (cssFlag == CssFlags.REAPPLY) return; > > // RT-36838 - don't reapply CSS in the middle of an update > - if (cssFlag == CssFlags.UPDATE) { > + if (cssFlag == CssFlags.UPDATE || cssFlag == CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH) { > cssFlag = CssFlags.REAPPLY; > notifyParentsOfInvalidatedCSS(); > return; > > With this fix - > Log from test program ---- > Parent 1 : VBox@36d24c70 > Parent 2 : VBox@35af5cea > Parent 3 : VBox@35af5cea > Rectangle > > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@36d24c70 ----- CssFlags.CLEAN** > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN** > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > **REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@5d4b6983 ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH > REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@35af5cea ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH > REAPPLY_CSS called for : VBox@36d24c70 ----- CssFlags.DIRTY_BRANCH** > reapplyCss called for : VBox@36d24c70 ----- CssFlags.REAPPLY > reapplyCss called for : VBox@35af5cea ----- CssFlags.REAPPLY > reapplyCss called for : VBox@5d4b6983 ----- CssFlags.REAPPLY > reapplyCss called for : Rectangle[...] ----- CssFlags.CLEAN > > > I verified that all graphics/controls unit tests & all system tests pass with > this fix. > I launched and played with Ensemble app. I did not see any visible artifacts. @aghaisas You can avoid the call to notifyParentsOfInvalidatedCSS in the case where the flag is DIRTY_BRANCH. I like the looks of this. From the 10,000 foot view, when a node's parent changes, or a node's scene changes, CSS should be reapplied. This is exactly what 'if (sceneChanged) reapplyCSS()' says, and what happens in parent property's invalidated method. All of the optimizations (do I _really_ need to reapply css?) happen elsewhere, so I like this solution better than passing a boolean around (the original patch). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/34
