Hi Am 08.09.23 um 16:41 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 15:56:51 +0200 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de> wrote:Hi Am 08.09.23 um 13:16 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 11:21:51 +0200 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de> wrote:Hi Am 25.08.23 um 16:04 schrieb Jocelyn Falempe: [...]+ * + * But there are two exceptions only for dumb buffers: + * * To support XRGB8888 if it's not supported by the hardware.+ * * Any driver is free to modify its internal representation of the format, + * as long as it doesn't alter the visible content in any way, and doesn't + * modify the user-provided buffer. An example would be to drop the + * padding component from a format to save some memory bandwidth.I have strong objections to this point, _especially_ as you're apparently trying to sneak this in after our discussion. NAK on this part from my side. If you want userspace to be able to use a certain format, then export the corresponding 4cc code. Then let userspace decide what to do about it. If userspace pick a certain format, go with it.What is the reason for your objection, exactly?Hence, no implicit conversion from XRGB888 to RGB888, just because it's possible.For the particular driver in question though, the conversion allows using a display resolution that is otherwise not possible. I also hear it improves performance since 25% less data needs to travel across a slow bus. There is also so little VRAM, than all dumb buffers need to be allocated from sysram instead anyway, so a copy is always necessary. Since XRGB8888 is the one format that is recommended to be supported by all drivers, I don't see a problem here. Did you test on your incredibly slow g200 test rig if the conversion ends up hurting instead of helping performance there? If it hurts, then I see that you have a good reason to NAK this. It's hard to imagine how it would hurt, since you always need a copy from sysram dumb buffers to VRAM - or do you?I have a number of concerns. My point it not that we shouldn't optimize. I just don't want it in the kernel. Mgag200 can export DRM_FORMAT_RGB888 for userspace to use. AFAICT the main argument against userspace is that Mesa doesn't like 3-byte pixels. But I don't see how this conversion cannot be a post-processing step within Mesa: do the rendering in RGB32 and then convert to a framebuffer in RGB24. Userspace can do that more efficiently than the kernel. This has all of the upsides of reduced bandwidth, but none of the downsides of kernel code. Applications and/or Mesa would be in control of the buffer format and apply the optimization where it makes sense. And it would be available for all drivers that are similar to mgag200. My main point is simplicity of the driver: I prefer the driver to be simple without unnecessary indirection or overhead. Optimizations like these my or may not work on a given system with a certain workload. I'd better leave this heuristic to userspace. Another point of concern is CPU consumption: Slow I/O buses may stall the display thread, but the CPU could do something else in the meantime. Doing format conversion on the CPU prevents that, hence affecting other parts of the system negatively. Of course, that's more of a gut feeling than hard data. Please note that the kernel's conversion code uses memory allocation of intermediate buffers. We even recently had a discussion about allocation overhead during display updates. Userspace can surely do a better job at keeping such buffers around. And finally a note the hardware itself: on low-end hardware like those Matrox chips, just switch to RGB16. That will be pretty and fast enough for these chips' server systems. Anyone who cares about fast and beautiful should buy a real graphics card.Fair enough. Did you consider that every frame will be copied twice: once in userspace to get RGB888, then again by the driver into VRAM, since dumb buffers reside in sysram?
In the kernel, we reduce the copying to the changed parts, if we have damage information from userspace. IDK Mesa's software renderer, but it could certainly apply a similar optimization.
RGB565 would probably go the same route I guess.
From what I know userspace still supports RGB565 rendering directly. Last time I tested, it worked for me.
I suspect the intermediate buffers (dumb buffers in this case) need to be full frame size rather than a scanline, too. I'm not sure why the driver would need any scratch buffers beyond a couple dozen bytes while doing a software conversion, just enough to have the lowest common multiple of 3 bytes and optimal bus write width.
For the conversion in the kernel we allocate enough temporary memory to hold the part of each scanline that changed. Then we go over dirty scanlines, convert each into the output format and store it in that temporary buffer. Then copy the temporary buffer to VRAM. The buffer can be reused for the scanlines of a single conversion. But the nature of the framebuffer (buffers are possibly shared with concurrent access from multiple planes) makes it hard to keep that temporary memory around. Hence it's freed after each conversion. The code is at [1].
I assume that a userspace software renderer could do a much better job at keeping the temporary memory allocated.
Best regards Thomas[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c#L88
Thanks, pqBest regards ThomasThanks, pq+ * On most hardware, VRAM read access are slow, so when doing the software + * conversion, the dumb buffer should be allocated in system RAM in order to + * have decent performance. + * Extra care should be taken when doing software conversion with + * DRM_CAP_DUMB_PREFER_SHADOW, there are more detailed explanations here: + * https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20230818162415.2185f8e3@eldfell/ */static unsigned int drm_num_planes(struct drm_device *dev)base-commit: 82d750e9d2f5d0594c8f7057ce59127e701af781
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
