[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: Testing your JavaFX applications on JDK 9
From:       Scott Palmer <swpalmer () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-01-27 3:06:00
Message-ID: AE368343-377F-4CA0-A6DC-4A022AD47D2B () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Sorry, I believe I'm running a 64-bit JRE in both cases.  I will verify when I'm back \
in the office tomorrow.

Scott

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Philip Race <philip.race@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> I was asking about the VM not the O/S.
> 
> 32 bit or 64 bit in this case.
> 
> Notably the 32 bit client VM is gone so you get the 32 bit server VM.
> That could make a difference, although in theory the server VM performs better - so
> long as it does not run out of memory.
> 
> -phil.
> 
> On 1/26/17, 6:44 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > I've only tested with Java 9 on Windows 10 64-bit so far.
> > 
> > I have not yet done any profiling to try to isolate where the difference might \
> > be.  The application generates data in native code, wrapped in a native \
> > ByteBuffer and passes an object around holding the buffer and map of properties \
> > to go with it.  I'm doing virtually no processing on the data and just measuring \
> > the rate that packets are going through the workflow so far.  The GUI is mostly \
> > static during the test except for a table and some labels showing stats that are \
> > updated with bitrates, packet rates, timestamps etc. 
> > I'll continue to try to isolate a test case that I can share as time allows.  I \
> > should be able to get some testing done on Mac and Linux as well and will send a \
> > followup email with any new information. 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 9:37 PM, Philip Race<philip.race@oracle.com>  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Scott,
> > > 
> > > What VM/bitness/platforms show this ? All or just a specific one ?
> > > 
> > > -phil.
> > > 
> > > On 1/26/17, 6:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> > > > Hi Scott,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the report. The only JDK 9 specific performance problems I have \
> > > > seen is with startup, which would be a good thing to discuss on jigsaw-dev. \
> > > > If you are seeing actual application slowdown, that might be something else, \
> > > > depending on where the problem is. Have you profiled your application? 
> > > > -- Kevin
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Scott Palmer wrote:
> > > > > I finally managed to get my app running on JDK 9.  It is based on a plugin \
> > > > > architecture and the plugins are made accessible by modifying the system \
> > > > > class loader at runtime (because that seemed to be the only way to make \
> > > > > things like JAXB able to reach the classes in the plugins).  That "hack" \
> > > > > broke with the module system so I had to find an alternative.  (Now I'm \
> > > > > using a java agent to get an Instrumentation interface so I can do it in a \
> > > > > somewhat supported way via the appendToSystemClassLoaderSearch method.) 
> > > > > Anyway, I've noticed that the application runs slower on Java 9.  For a \
> > > > > simple test I see almost a 10% performance drop.  However, I'm not sure \
> > > > > that it is Java FX related.  I see the same throughput with the default \
> > > > > renderer or the recently added Marlin renderer, always a bit slower than \
> > > > > Java 8u121.  I use the same JVM options, including forcing the garbage \
> > > > > collector to use the same algorithm. 
> > > > > Is there any expectation of a performance drop with JDK 9 at this stage?  \
> > > > > For example should I expect some unoptimized stuff in the EA builds? I \
> > > > > guess the jigsaw-dev alias the right place to bring this up? 
> > > > > I have a feeling it is going to be difficult to track down. :-(
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have noticed a couple layout issues fixed with JavaFX 9. Stuff that used \
> > > > > to "snap into place" only when I resized a dialog now seems to be correct \
> > > > > when the dialog first appears. Thanks for that! 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Scott
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth<kevin.rushforth@oracle.com>  \
> > > > > > wrote: 
> > > > > > As you may know JDK 9 has hit the feature extension complete milestone \
> > > > > > [1]. We still have a small number of weeks to fix P1-P3 bugs, but we need \
> > > > > > to know about them in order to fix them. Our focus will be on bugs that \
> > > > > > are new in JDK 9 (regressions). 
> > > > > > I ask all JavaFX developers to please download JDK 9 early access [2] and \
> > > > > > test your application. You can report any bugs via bugs.java.com [3]. If \
> > > > > > you have any questions about whether a behavior is a bug or is expected, \
> > > > > > please ask on this alias or on the jigsaw-dev alias [4]. 
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- Kevin
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/
> > > > > > [2] https://jdk9.java.net/download/
> > > > > > [3] http://bugreport.java.com/
> > > > > > [4] jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net
> > > > > > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]