| Performance issue with FXCanvas [message #1388294] |
Thu, 26 June 2014 08:21  |
 Michał Ćmil
Messages: 4
Registered: March 2014 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello,
I tried to run FlexGanttFX in an E4 application (using an FXCanvas) and I've noticed that the performance is lower than when running a standalone JavaFX application. That made me wondering if its specific to the things I do, or its a more general problem. I made a little benchmark using Oracle samples. I've run the same code (thousands of colorful circles drawn on a 1080p scene) using FXCanvas and in a standalone JavaFX application (the code is available on github.com: mcmil/fxcanvas-benchmark). The results are as follows (values are FPS measured by Performance tracker):
standalone javafx app
Avg: 0.0 instant 0.0
Avg: 34.598766 instant 0.0
Avg: 45.718437 instant 36.872547
Avg: 49.234116 instant 55.55428
Avg: 50.958836 instant 56.874763
Avg: 51.982483 instant 55.835545
Avg: 52.82121 instant 54.849483
Avg: 49.67068 instant 57.75312
Avg: 43.40379 instant 57.75312
FXCanvas
Avg: 0.0 instant 0.0
Avg: 19.496336 instant 0.0
Avg: 23.803656 instant 19.982939
Avg: 25.214998 instant 27.849215
Avg: 25.412786 instant 27.835789
Avg: 25.731888 instant 26.75477
Avg: 26.278933 instant 26.842173
Avg: 23.945173 instant 28.574305
Avg: 20.942469 instant 28.574305
As you can see I got around 50% frame drop. But the problem is that the drop is really noticeable for the end user. I went to investigate the FXCanvas class, and saw something like this in it:
// Consider optimizing this
ImageData imageData = null;
if ("win32".equals(SWT.getPlatform())) {
PaletteData palette = new PaletteData(0xFF00, 0xFF0000, 0xFF000000);
int scanline = width * 4;
byte[] dstData = new byte[scanline * height];
int[] srcData = buffer.array();
int dp = 0, sp = 0;
for (int y = 0; y < height; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < width; x++) {
int p = srcData[sp++];
dstData[dp++] = (byte) (p & 0xFF); //dst:blue
dstData[dp++] = (byte)((p >> 8) & 0xFF); //dst:green
dstData[dp++] = (byte)((p >> 16) & 0xFF); //dst:green
dstData[dp++] = (byte)0x00; //alpha
}
}
/*ImageData*/ imageData = new ImageData(width, height, 32, palette, 4, dstData);
}
Well, that looks bad. But even when I removed this looping - the performance gain was not that big. So the problem is somewhere else.
My question is: is there any way to embed an JavaFX scene inside of an SWT application (E4) without such a performance drop? Will it get optimized in further JDK versions or it is unknown? Or maybe there are some optimization techniques that I can use for SWT to avoid this issues?
Any advice would be great - because currently, the performance is quite a problem.
|
|
|
| Re: Performance issue with FXCanvas [message #1388305 is a reply to message #1388294] |
Thu, 26 June 2014 08:38  |
Thomas Schindl
Messages: 6651
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
You better direct your questions towards Oracle - we do not maintain
that code! If I understand FXCanvas appropriately it renderes JavaFX
into an offscreen buffer and copies the pixels back and draws them on
the SWT-Canvas.
In the log run I think you are better of switching your e4 application
fully towards JavaFX, in case you have SWT-UI-Code our SWT on JavaFX
port might help you, it is able to render most buisness UIs.
Tom
On 26.06.14 10:21, Michał Ćmil wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried to run FlexGanttFX in an E4 application (using an FXCanvas) and
> I've noticed that the performance is lower than when running a
> standalone JavaFX application. That made me wondering if its specific to
> the things I do, or its a more general problem. I made a little
> benchmark using Oracle samples. I've run the same code (thousands of
> colorful circles drawn on a 1080p scene) using FXCanvas and in a
> standalone JavaFX application (the code is available on github.com:
> mcmil/fxcanvas-benchmark). The results are as follows (values are FPS
> measured by Performance tracker):
> standalone javafx app
> Avg: 0.0 instant 0.0
> Avg: 34.598766 instant 0.0
> Avg: 45.718437 instant 36.872547
> Avg: 49.234116 instant 55.55428
> Avg: 50.958836 instant 56.874763
> Avg: 51.982483 instant 55.835545
> Avg: 52.82121 instant 54.849483
> Avg: 49.67068 instant 57.75312
> Avg: 43.40379 instant 57.75312
>
> FXCanvas
> Avg: 0.0 instant 0.0
> Avg: 19.496336 instant 0.0
> Avg: 23.803656 instant 19.982939
> Avg: 25.214998 instant 27.849215
> Avg: 25.412786 instant 27.835789
> Avg: 25.731888 instant 26.75477
> Avg: 26.278933 instant 26.842173
> Avg: 23.945173 instant 28.574305
> Avg: 20.942469 instant 28.574305
>
> As you can see I got around 50% frame drop. But the problem is that the
> drop is really noticeable for the end user. I went to investigate the
> FXCanvas class, and saw something like this in it:
> // Consider optimizing this
> ImageData imageData = null;
> if ("win32".equals(SWT.getPlatform())) {
> PaletteData palette = new PaletteData(0xFF00, 0xFF0000,
> 0xFF000000);
> int scanline = width * 4;
> byte[] dstData = new byte[scanline * height];
> int[] srcData = buffer.array();
> int dp = 0, sp = 0;
> for (int y = 0; y < height; y++) {
> for (int x = 0; x < width; x++) {
> int p = srcData[sp++];
> dstData[dp++] = (byte) (p & 0xFF); //dst:blue
> dstData[dp++] = (byte)((p >> 8) & 0xFF); //dst:green
> dstData[dp++] = (byte)((p >> 16) & 0xFF); //dst:green
> dstData[dp++] = (byte)0x00; //alpha
> }
> }
> /*ImageData*/ imageData = new ImageData(width, height, 32,
> palette, 4, dstData);
> }
>
> Well, that looks bad. But even when I removed this looping - the
> performance gain was not that big. So the problem is somewhere else.
> My question is: is there any way to embed an JavaFX scene inside of an
> SWT application (E4) without such a performance drop? Will it get
> optimized in further JDK versions or it is unknown? Or maybe there are
> some optimization techniques that I can use for SWT to avoid this issues?
>
> Any advice would be great - because currently, the performance is quite
> a problem.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04107 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I guess we will have to try and optimize somehow our JavaFX drawing on the FXCanvas (or hope that it will be fixed in the future).