Bug 128417 - Open Ant Editor performance regression
Summary: Open Ant Editor performance regression
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Ant (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform-Ant-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: performance
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-17 09:59 EST by Darin Swanson CLA
Modified: 2006-10-19 18:34 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Darin Swanson CLA 2006-02-17 09:59:25 EST
We appear to have a significant decrease in performance for opening the Ant editor...which is surprising considering the limited changes made to the editor in the 3.2 timespan.

I need to figure out what is to blame.
Comment 1 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-02-23 13:30:31 EST
This would appear to be a duplicate of bug 126901
Comment 2 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-02-23 14:35:16 EST
I have found a small improvement to add in 3.2 which removed one additional refresh of the outline view.
Changes to AntEditorContentOutlinePage
Comment 3 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-03-16 13:33:32 EST
So with no changes to the Ant editor we now have an even larger regression looking at http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/I20060314-0800/performance/eclipseperfwin2_R3.2/org.eclipse.ant.tests.ui.editor.performance.OpenAntEditorTest.testOpenAntEditor2().html#Elapsed%20Process

Do either of you guys have an idea on what has changed in the after I20060307 that could cause this slowdown?
Comment 4 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-03-16 13:34:04 EST
cc dp as well.
Comment 5 Dani Megert CLA 2006-03-16 13:51:31 EST
Mmh - the various "open text editor" tests are still red but improved. What exactly are you testing?
- open directly after startup
- open after doing some warm up?
- reopen one that has been opened before?

The diff looks so huge that it should be quite easy to detect this regression. Did you try that?
Comment 6 Dani Megert CLA 2006-03-26 15:11:32 EST
I tried to find a difference on a WindowsXP machine by comparing I20060307-1315
with I20060314-0800 but so far the only big difference was:
     46.41% - 319627 ms - org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.WorkerPool.sleep()
which I cannot explain but shouldn't do much harm. Time and invocation numbers looked pretty identical when looking at the two builds.

Side Note: Starting with I20060322-1335 the JRE on the releng WinXP and Linux machines changed from 1.4.2_08-b03 to 1.4.2_10-b03.
Comment 7 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-04-12 19:24:56 EDT
I spend some more time on this and I profiled N20060411-0010 compared to Eclipse 3.2M3 for org.eclipse.ant.tests.ui.editor.performance.OpenAntEditorTest#testOpenAntEditorNoFolding().

Running on my machine (WinXP, JDK 1.4.2_08, 3ghz, 2.5 GB) I see little regression: 3 to 5%.

Why the huge difference from the releng perf tests?
For releng: org.eclipse.ant.tests.ui.editor.performance.OpenAntEditorTest#testOpenAntEditorNoFolding() (Win XP Sun 1.4.2_08 (3 GHz 2 GB)) is showing a 75% regression??
http://fullmoon.rtp.raleigh.ibm.com/downloads/drops/N20060411-0010/performance/eclipseperfwin2_R3.2/org.eclipse.ant.tests.ui.editor.performance.OpenAntEditorTest.testOpenAntEditorNoFolding().html#Elapsed%20Process

Dani, I do not understand your comment on the switch to 1.4.2_10...this is for running the perf tests? The pages are all still claiming 1.4.2_08
Comment 8 Dani Megert CLA 2006-04-13 02:24:23 EDT
>Dani, I do not understand your comment on the switch to 1.4.2_10...this is for
>running the perf tests? The pages are all still claiming 1.4.2_08
Yes, saw that one as well. It looks like the new version is only used for the correctness tests.
Comment 9 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-05-10 00:28:13 EDT
no better understanding and the results are still bad.
Opportunity for improvement in 3.3
Comment 10 Darin Swanson CLA 2006-10-19 18:34:49 EDT
nothing more planned here.