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) > 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. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
