I always followed the common advice for WPF's D3DImage.IsFrontBufferAvailable and stopped rendering when the front buffer is not available. But after resetting the D3D device this property sometimes remains stuck to false and never becomes true again.
Unless I drop to the debugger and ignore the property and continue rendering anyway, then it actually turns back to true and everything starts working again.
Even removing the D3DImage.IsFrontBufferAvailable check entirely and completely ignoring the property all the time seems to work well.
It seems that's also ​recommended by some people for other reasons:
Note that even if the IsFrontBufferAvailable flag is stating that it is unavailable, you’ll still be able to render properly. The trick is to simply ignore the flag.
What are the downsides to completely ignoring it? (Or is there some other trick that makes it not stop working?)
I think its recommended to save resources if the program is not displayed (e.g. if the user is in lock screen).
From my experience you can safely ignore it, it just keeps rendering even if the UI is not shown to the user.
If your application does not need a lot of resources this does not have a big impact on power consumption.
Related
I'm looking at improving developer experience when running graphics tests which spawn short-lived windows "like crazy". The windows need to be physically there, as otherwise data readback fails (i.e. the window cannot be hidden)
Needless to say, windows popping up at high frequency is unpleasant. I set out with the goal of finding a way to tell XCreateWindow to "create the window in the background", "not to steal focus" or something like that to no avail. The closest thing I could find is calling XSetInputFocus post-creation. Other than the fact that I couldn't make it work, I don't expect setting input focus to fully solve the issue anyway (as the windows would still pop up, just not without input focus, right?).
How is this done in X11?
P.S. The update notification on Ubuntu starts without popping to front, so this must be a possibility.
In the past I've tried and admitedly failed doing what you want to do. Nevertheless I've found a few "close-enough"-solutions that may be of interest.
XCreatePixmap might work out, but in my case didn't have a pixmap with desired properties (multisampling) so it "out the window" (haha)
To prevent some level of spaming you might be able to set XCreateWindow parent to a an exisiting window other than root, large enough to hold your tests and moved outside display. The parent window need be created, moved outside display and un-focused, but at least every window creation won't steal focus (I think) and spam on display.
Or you figure out a way to create additional displays, maybe using Xvbf. Didn't have admin access to corp dev env so didn't bother trying to install/configure, in addition to other obstacles, but it might just work for you.
I need to make a gtk.Entry read-only like without using set_sensitive, specifically gtk_widget_set_sensitive will turn off all events, where as I'm only looking to make the entry clearly read-only, but to continue to receive signals.
It also has to be editable under certain circumstances, so gtk.Label is not an option - whereas gtk.Entry does not have a selectable attribute that can be modified.
The only thing I could think of so far is creating a gtk.Entry, waiting for a user to complete input and then replacing it with a gtk.Label, this doesn't sound very nice though.
Set both editable and can_focus properties to false.
The former ensures that the entry is read-only (while still receiving events such as selection), and the latter avoids the problem mentioned in the comment where the appearance of the cursor makes the entry appear editable when it's in fact not.
Hi when I set ShowItemToolTips of a ListView with checkbox items to true in designer and change it to false in the code, the event ItemChecked is raised. The checked state itself is not changed though. But inside the (also raised) ItemCheck event the old value is not equal to the new value but the new value is the value that was previously visible. It seems like the items are re-inserted or reset in some way.
I tested this on two machines and projects. Why does this happen and how can I avoid it?
I'll explain the "why", a workaround is hard to come by. Some control properties are very impactful and can have odd side-effects when you change them. Like ShowItemToolTips, changing it after the ListView is created requires Winforms to completely destroy the native control and recreate it from scratch. Under the hood, it is a style flag (LVS_EX_INFOTIP) that's specified in the CreateWindowEx() call. The Control.RecreateHandle() method ensures it is effective. You'll see the flicker that this causes if you look closely.
So for a brief moment, the native control exists without yet being initialized with the original checkbox states. Getting a flaky event for that is a bug, but it is the kind that was either never fixed because doing so was too difficult or was just never discovered because nobody ever changes the ShowItemToolTips property after the control was created. It is very uncommon to do so.
In general, this native control re-creation trick has been a significant bug generator in Winforms. And workarounds are hard to come by, they fit either in the "deal with it" or the "don't do it" category. With the latter one strongly recommended in this case.
I have a WPF application that needs to do some processing of many small tasks.
These small tasks are all generated at the same time and added to the Dispatcher Queue with a priority of Normal. At the same time a busy indicator is being displayed. The result is that the busy indicator actually freezes despite the work being broken into tasks.
I tried changing the priority of these tasks to be Background to see if that fixed it, but still the busy indicator froze.
I subscribed to the Dispatcher.Hooks.OperationStarted event to see if any render jobs occurred while my tasks were processing but they didn't.
Any ideas what is going on?
Some technical details:
The tasks are actually just messages coming from an Observable sequence, and they are "queued" into the dispatcher by a call to ReactiveUI's ObserveOn(RxApp.MainThreadScheduler) which should be equivalent to ObserveOn(DispatcherScheduler). The work portion of each of these tasks is the code that is subscribing through the ObserveOn call e.g.
IObservable<TaskMessage> incomingTasks;
incomingTasks.ObserveOn(RxApp.MainThreadScheduler).Subscribe(SomeMethodWhichDoesWork);
in this example, incomingTasks would produce maybe 3000+ messages in short succession, the ObserveOn pushes each call to SomeMethodWhichDoesWork onto the Dispatcher queue so that it will be processed later
The basic problem
The reason you are seeing the busy indicator stall is because your SomeMethodWhichDoesWork is taking too long. While it is running, it prevents any other work from occuring on the Dispatcher.
Input and Render priority operations generated to handle animations are lower than Normal, but higher priority than Background operations. However, operations on the Dispatcher are not interrupted by the enqueing of higher priority operations. So a Render operation will have to wait for a running operation, even if it is a Background operation.
Caveat regarding observing on the DispatcherScheduler
ObserveOn(DispatcherScheduler) will push everything through at Normal priority by default. More recent versions of Rx have on overload that allows you to specify a priority.
One point to highlight that's often missed is that items will be queued onto the Dispatcher by the DispatcherScheduler as soon as they arrive NOT one after the other.
So if your 3000 items all turn up fairly close together, you will have 3000 operations at Normal priority backed up on the Dispatcher blocking everything of the same or lower priority until they are done - including Render operations. This is almost certainly what you were seeing - and that means you might still see problems even if you do all but the UI update work on a background thread depending on how heavy your UI updates are.
In addition to this, you should check you aren't running the whole subscription on the UI thread - as Lee says. I usually write my code so that I Subscribe on a background thread rather than use SubscribeOn, although this is perfectly fine too.
Recommendations
Whatever you do, do as much work as possible on a background thread. That point has been done to death on StackOverflow, and elsewhere. Here are some good resources covering this:
MSDN Entry on WPF Threading Model
MSDN Magazine "Build More Responsive Apps With The Dispatcher", by Shaun Wildermuth
If you want to keep the UI responsive in the face of lots of small updates you can either:
Schedule items at a lower priority, which is nice and easy - but not so good if you need a certain priority
Store updates in your own queue and enqueue them and have each operation you run Invoke the next item from your queue as it's last step.
The bigger picture
It's worth stepping back a bit and looking at the bigger picture as well.
If you separately dump 3000 items into the UI in succession, what's that going to do for the user? At best they are going to be running a monitor with a refresh rate of 100Hz, probably lower. I find that frame rates of 10 per second are more than adequate for most purposes.
Not only that, human beings supposedly can't handle more than 5-9 bits of information in one go - so you might find better ways of aggregating and displaying information than updating so many things at once. For example, make use of master/detail views rather than showing everything on screen at once etc. etc.
Another option is to review how much work your UI update is causing. Some controls (I'm looking at you XamDataGrid) can have very lengthy measure/arrange layout operations. Can you simplify your animations? Use a simpler Visual tree? Think about the popular busy spinner that looks like circling dots - but really it's just changing their color. A great effect that is fairly cheap to achieve. It's worth profiling your application to see where time is going.
I would think about the overrall approach front-to-back as well. If you are reasonably certain you are going to get that many items to update at once, why not buffer them up and manage them in chunks? That would might have advantages all the way back to the source - which perhaps is on a server somewhere? In any case, Rx has some nice operators, like Buffer that can turn a stream of individual items into a larger lists - and it has overloads that can buffer by time and size together.
Have you tried using .SubscribeOn(TaskPoolScheduler.TaskPool) to subscribe on a different thread?
#Pedro Pombeiro has the right answer.
The reason you are seeing the freezes on the UI is that you are queueing the work on the Dispatcher. This means the work will be done on the UI thread. You can think of the Dispatcher as a message pump that is constant draining messages from each of its queues (which you can think of each of the priorities [SystemIdle, ApplicationIdle, ContextIdle, Background, Input, Loaded, Render, DataBind, Normal, Send])
Putting you work onto a different priority queue, does not make it run concurrently, just asynchronously.
To run your work on another thread using Rx, then use SubscribeOn as above. Remember to then schedule any updates to the UI back on to the Dispatcher with ObserveOn.
We've created a new, quite complex, WPF application from the ground up and have run into a performance problem as the number of commands registered with the CommandManager increase. We're using simple lightweight commands in our MVVM implementation, however the third party controls we're using (Infragistics) do not, and call CommandManager.RegisterClassCommandBinding liberally to add RoutedCommands. The performance problem manifests itself as a perceived sluggishness in the UI when responding to user input, for example tabbing between controls is slow, text input is 'jerky' and popup animation is 'clunky'. When the app is first fired up the UI is snappy. As more screens containing Infragistics grids are opened the performance deteriorates.
Internally, the CommandManager has a private field named _requerySuggestedHandlers, which is a List< WeakReference>. I've used reflection to get a reference to this collection, and I've noticed that when I call .Clear(), the responsiveness of the UI improves back to its initial state. Obviously I don't want to go round clearing collections that I know little about, especially using reflection (!) but I did it to see if it would cure the performance problems, and voila it did.
Normally, this situation would clean itself up after a certain amount of time passes. However, the collection of WeakReferences (_requerySuggestedHandlers) will only get trimmed once a garbage collection is initiated, which is non-deterministic. Because of this, when we close down windows containing grids (Infragistics XamDataGrid), the CanExecute property for 'dead' grid commands continue to be evaluated unnecessarily, long after the window is closed. This also means that if we close down a number of windows, the performance is still sluggish until a garbage collect is initiated. I understand that this can happen on allocation, and I've seen that myself because if I open a further window this causes the initial memory (from the disposed Windows) to be collected and performance returns to normal.
So, given the above, here are my questions:
How, and from where, does CommandManager.InvalidateRequerySuggested() get called? I haven't found any documentation on MSDN that explains this in any great detail. I hooked up to the CommandManager.RequerySuggested event and it looks like it's being called whenever controls lose focus.
Is is possible to suppress CommandManager.InvalidateRequerySuggested() being called in response to user input?
Has anyone else run into this issue, and if so, how have you avoided it?
Thanks!
This sounds like one of the rare cases where deterministically calling GC.Collect() is the right thing to do. The ordinary argument against it is that the garbage collector is smarter than you are. But when you're dealing with WeakReference objects, you enter territory where you may know something that the garbage collector doesn't. Kicking off garbage collection is certainly better than clearing _requerySuggestedHandlers - among other things, it won't do anything to the WeakReference objects that point to controls that are still alive.
I'd choose this over trying to figure out how to suppress RequerySuggested, since that would screw up the behavior of those commands that you still care about.