Am 01.06.21 um 12:49 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2021-06-01 12:21 p.m., Christian König wrote:
Am 01.06.21 um 11:02 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2021-05-27 11:51 p.m., Marek Olšák wrote:
3) Compositors (and other privileged processes, and display flipping) can't
trust imported/exported fences. They need a timeout recovery mechanism from the
beginning, and the following are some possible solutions to timeouts:
a) use a CPU wait with a small absolute timeout, and display the previous
content on timeout
b) use a GPU wait with a small absolute timeout, and conditional rendering will
choose between the latest content (if signalled) and previous content (if timed
out)
The result would be that the desktop can run close to 60 fps even if an app
runs at 1 fps.
FWIW, this is working with
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/1880 , even with
implicit sync (on current Intel GPUs; amdgpu/radeonsi would need to provide the
same dma-buf poll semantics as other drivers and high priority GFX contexts via
EGL_IMG_context_priority which can preempt lower priority ones).
Yeah, that is really nice to have.
One question is if you wait on the CPU or the GPU for the new surface to become
available?
It's based on polling dma-buf fds, i.e. CPU.
The former is a bit bad for latency and power management.
There isn't a choice for Wayland compositors in general, since there can be
arbitrary other state which needs to be applied atomically together with the
new buffer. (Though in theory, a compositor might get fancy and special-case
surface commits which can be handled by waiting on the GPU)
Latency is largely a matter of scheduling in the compositor. The latency
incurred by the compositor shouldn't have to be more than single-digit
milliseconds. (I've seen total latency from when the client starts processing a
(static) frame to when it starts being scanned out as low as ~6 ms with
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/1620, lower than typical
with Xorg)
Well let me describe it like this:
We have an use cases for 144 Hz guaranteed refresh rate. That
essentially means that the client application needs to be able to spit
out one frame/window content every ~6.9ms. That's tough, but doable.
When you now add 6ms latency in the compositor that means the client
application has only .9ms left for it's frame which is basically
impossible to do.
See for the user fences handling the display engine will learn to read
sequence numbers from memory and decide on it's own if the old frame or
the new one is scanned out. To get the latency there as low as possible.
Another question is if that is sufficient as security for the display server or
if we need further handling down the road? I mean essentially we are moving the
reliability problem into the display server.
Good question. This should generally protect the display server from freezing
due to client fences never signalling, but there might still be corner cases.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
