On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:08 PM James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com
<mailto:jajo...@nvidia.com>> wrote:
On 05/11/2016 02:31 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On 11 May 2016 at 21:43, James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com
<mailto:jajo...@nvidia.com>> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2016 08:56 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> Right - but as with the point I was making below, GBM _right
now_ is
>>> more capable than Streams _right now_. GBM right now would
require API
>>> additions to match EGLStreams + EGLSwitch +
Streams/KMS-interop, but
>>> the last two aren't written either, so. (More below.)
>>
>> The current behavior that enables this, where basically all
Wayland buffers
>> must be allocated as scanout-capable, isn't reasonable on NVIDIA
hardware.
>> The requirements for scanout are too onerous.
>
> I think we're talking past each other, so I'd like to pare the
> discussion down to these two sentences, and my two resultant points,
> for now:
>
> I posit that the Streams proposal you (plural) have put forward
is, at
> best, no better at meeting these criteria:
> - there is currently no support for direct scanout from client
> buffers in Streams, so it must always pessimise towards GPU
> composition
> - GBM stacks can obviously do the same: implement a no-op
> gbm_bo_import, and have your client always allocate non-scanout
> buffers - presto, you've matched Streams
>
> I posit that GBM _can_ match the capability of a hypothetical
> EGLStreams/EGLSwitch implementation. Current _implementations_ of GBM
> cannot, but I posit that it is not a limitation of the API it
exposes,
> and unlike Streams, the capability can be plumbed in with no new
> external API required.
>
> These seem pretty fundamental, so ... am I missing something? :\ If
> so, can you please outline fairly specifically how you think
> non-Streams implementations are not capable of meeting the
criteria in
> your two sentences?
I respect the need to rein in the discussion, but I think several
substantive aspects have been lost here. I typed up a much longer
response below, but I'll try to summarize in 4 sentences:
GBM could match the allocation aspects of streams used in Miguel's first
round of patches. However, I disagree that its core API is sufficient
to match the allocation capabilities of EGLStream+EGLSwitch where all
producing and consuming devices+engines are known at allocation time.
Further, streams have additional equally valuable functionality beyond
allocation that GBM does not seem intended to address. Absent
agreement, I believe co-existence of EGLStreams and GBM+wl_drm in
Wayland/Weston is a reasonable path forward in the short term.
The longer version:
GBM alone can not perform as well as EGLStreams unless it is extended
into something more or less the same as EGLStreams, where it knows
exactly what engines are being used to produce the buffer content (along
with their current configuration), and exactly what
engines/configuration are being used to consume it. This implies
allocating against multiple specific objects, rather than a device and a
set of allocation modifier flags, and/or importing an external
allocation and hoping it meets the current requirements. From what I
can see, GBM fundamentally understands at most the consumer side of the
equation.
Suppose however, GBM was taught everything streams know implicitly about
all users of the buffers at allocation time. After allocation, GBM is
done with its job, but streams & drivers aren't.
The act of transitioning a buffer from optimal "producer mode" to
optimal "consumer mode" relies on all the device & config information as
well, meaning it would need to be fed into the graphics driver (EGL or
whatever window system binding is used) by each window system the
graphics driver was running on to achieve equivalent capabilities to
EGLStream.
Fundamentally, the API-level view of individual graphics buffers as raw
globally coherent & accessible stores of pixels with static layout is
flawed. Images on a GPU are more of a mutating spill space for a
collection of state describing the side effects of various commands than
a 2D array of pixels. Forcing GPUs to resolve an image to a 2D array of
pixels in any particular layout can be very inefficient. The
GL+GLX/EGL/etc. driver model hides this well, but it breaks down in a
few cases like EGLImage and GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, the former not
really living up to its implied potential because of this, and the
latter mostly working only because it has a very limited domain where
things can be shared, but still requires a lot of platform-specific code
to support properly. Vulkan brings a lot more of this out into the open
with its very explicit image state transitions and limitations on which
engines can access an image in any given state, but that's just within
the Vulkan API itself (I.e., strictly on a single GPU and optionally an
associated display engine within the same driver & process) so far.
The EGLStream encapsulation takes into consideration the new use cases
EGLImage, GBM, etc. were intended to address, and restores what I
believe to be the minimal amount of the traditional GL+GLX/EGL/etc.
model, while still allowing as much of the flexibility of the "a bunch
of buffers" mental model as possible. We can re-invent that with GBM
API adjustments, a set of restrictions on how the buffers it allocates
can be used, and another layer of metadata being pumped into drivers on
top of that, but I suspect we'd wind up with something that looks very
similar to streams.
We're both delving into future developments and hypotheticals to some
degree here. If we can't agree now on which direction is best, I
believe the right solution is to allow the two to co-exist and compete
collegially until the benefits of one or the other become more apparent.
The Wayland protocol and Weston compositor were designed in a manner
that makes this as painless as possible. It's not like we're going to
get a ton of Wayland clients that suddenly rely on EGLStream. At worst,
streams lose out and some dead code needs to be deleted from any
compositors that adopted them. As we discussed, there is some
maintenance cost to having two paths, but I believe it is reasonably
contained.
Hi,
I've been following this thread for some time, and you've raised some
interesting points. This one in particular concerns me, however. As I
understand it, you're proposing your stream-based approach which would
exist alongside the current standard (and universally-used) GBM.
Additionally, in order to run on your specific brand of hardware, all
toolkit and compositor authors would need to implement your proposed
streams functionality otherwise only software rendering would be available?
If this is true then it seems a bit strange to me that, despite still
speaking in hypothetical terms about future developments in both GBM and
streams, you're stating that GBM cannot be improved to match the
functionality of your proposed approach and are instead advocating that
everyone who has already written support for GBM now also support streams.
As someone with more than a casual interest in both toolkit and
compositor development, I'd like to see the best approach succeed, but I
don't see any fundamental blocker to providing the functionality you've
described in GBM, and I'm not overly enthusiastic about someone
requiring even more work from those who write toolkits and compositors,
especially when having "full" Wayland support is already such an
enormous undertaking.
If I'm misunderstanding things, I'd appreciate some clarifications.
