How do I read the output of the Pulse Logger?

[David Grieve]

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