On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:29:16 GMT, David Grieve <github.com+4412658+dsgri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> 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). Thanks @dsgrieve for having a look. I have updated the PR as suggested to avoid call to notifyParentsOfInvalidatedCSS in case the flag is DIRTY_BRANCH. Also, I have modified the system test as suggested by @kevinrushforth. Kindly review. Limited testing shows that this fix holds up good. PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/34
