News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Migrating a JavaScript Library from JavaScript to WebAssembly. Parent comment

Re:Migrating a JavaScript Library from JavaScript to WebAsse... by micrio on Thursday February 11, 2021 @04:20AM (#26099707)
I have to admit that I didn't dive 100% into what made this difference exactly. It just worked better without webworkers.

I just dived into the git history, and it turns out I didn't use the buffers as transferable. Perhaps that was it! I'll definitely check that out later, thank you for pointing this out!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Migrating a JavaScript Library from JavaScript to WebAsse... by micrio on Friday February 12, 2021 @07:15AM (#26112845)
A follow-up on this one. Now textures are downloaded by WebWorkers using the transferable buffers.

Over multiple benchmark runs this results in another 32% CPU performance gain (WebWorkers vs single thread texture downloads)!

Thank you for point this out to me!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Migrating a JavaScript Library from JavaScript to WebAsse... by moron4hire on Friday February 12, 2021 @12:23PM (#26116045)
No problem. I just happen to be working on a somewhat similar project. It's strictly 360 photos and it's built around our company's foregin language instruction services, but I've had to deal with/am currently dealing with several similar issues. Indeed, the next major tech change I had planned was to also implement my own WebGL code and get rid of Three.js. I'd like to see if I could get the WebGL code running in a WebWorker with OffscreenCanvas, but I'm as-yet unsure if that will work with WebXR.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Migrating a JavaScript Library from JavaScript to WebAsse... by XCSme on Thursday February 11, 2021 @10:12AM (#26102246)
> it turns out I didn't use the buffers as transferable

Not using transferable has HUGE performance hits, it can take even seconds to transfer larger buffers.

[ Parent | on HN ]