On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Mario Kleiner
<mario.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jesse, cc'ing you in case you have thoughts about this for the intel side of
> things?
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> 2011/11/17 Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> [ Dropping intel-gfx list from CC, as it automatically rejects posts
>>> from non-subscribers ]
>>>
>>> On Mit, 2011-11-16 at 21:39 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are two possible races when disabling vblanks. If the IRQ
>>>> fired but the hardware didn't update its counter yet, then we store
>>>> too low a hardware counter. (Sensible hardware never does this.
>>>> Apparently not all hardware is sensible.)
>>>
>>> The thing is, 'the' IRQ and 'the' hardware counter aren't necessarily
>>> about the same thing. We want an IRQ which triggers at the beginning of
>>> vertical blank, but the Radeon hardware counters increment at the
>>> beginning of scanout, i.e. at the end of vertical blank. Does that make
>>> the hardware 'broken' or 'not sensible'?
>>
>> Perhaps not. I think that using that counter as the return value of
>> get_vblank_counter is a bit unfortunate in that case, though. Anyway,
>> I'm not particularly attached to the comment as written.
>>
>> Am I correct in guessing that Radeon fires its vblank irq at the
>> beginning of vblank instead of at the end And doesn't this mean that
>> Radeon has a separate issue when vblank_get happens during the vblank
>> interval? A trick similar to drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos
>> ought to be able to fix that.
>>
>
> The Radeon's i tested (R500, R600) fire the vblank irq even a few scanlines
> before the start of vblank. I think most gpu's fire very close to the
> beginning of vblank, because one wants to use the vblank irq to trigger some
> work that needs to be done within the vblank interval. Some Radeon's
> sometimes fire a spurious vblank irq at the moment vblank irq's get enabled,
> althought that could also be some tiny bug in the kms driver, maybe missing
> some acknowledge of a pending irq somewhere in the vblank off or on
> function. That's the reason for some of the fun inside
> drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() and drm_handle_vblank(), to
> associate a vblank irq and the vblank timestamps with the correct vblank
> interval, even if the irq handler executes a bit outside the vblank
> interval.
>
>>>
>>>> If, on the other hand, the counter updated but the IRQ didn't fire
>>>> yet, we store too high a counter.
>>>>
>>>> We handled the former case with a heuristic based on timestamps and
>>>> we did not handle the latter case. By saving a little more state,
>>>> we can handle both cases exactly: all we need to do is watch for
>>>> changes in the difference between the hardware and software vblank
>>>> counts.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that can't work:
>>>
>>> Some (AFAIR also Intel) hardware resets the counter to 0 when the CRTC
>>> is disabled / enabled (e.g. for DPMS, or a modeset). That's why we ended
>>> up only counting interrupts while the IRQ is enabled, and only using the
>>> hardware counter to fill in while the IRQ is disabled. The hardware
>>> counter cannot be assumed to have any defined behaviour between enabling
>>> and disabling the IRQ.
>>>
>>> To compensate for this, the drivers call drm_vblank_pre_modeset (which
>>> enables the IRQ, which also updates the virtual counter from the
>>> hardware counter) before disabling the CRTC and drm_vblank_post_modeset
>>> (which disables the IRQ, which also records the hardware counter) after
>>> enabling the CRTC.
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't this be fixable, though, by adding appropriate logic in
>> drm_vblank_pre_modeset and drm_vblank_post_modeset?
>>
>>
>> Would this be a lot simpler if drm had a function (or call to the
>> driver) to compute both the vblank count and the last vblank
>> timestamp? That way the irq handler, drm_update_vblank_count,
>> vblank_disable_and_save, and pre/post modeset could keep everything
>> exactly in sync. IIRC i915 has this capability in hardware, and if
>> Radeon indeed updates the frame count exactly at the end of the vblank
>> interval, it could compute this exactly as well.
>
> I think Andrews idea is very close to what i proposed in Matthews RFC e-mail
> thread, if we use the scanout position as a "clock", except we could get rid
> of the calibration loop, the part i like least about my proposal, if we know
> for sure when each gpu increments its hardware counter.
>
> At least intel, radeon and nouveau (hopefully soonish - patches almost ready
> for submission) expose the dev->driver->get_scanout_position() hook, so we
> know the scanline at time of vblank counter query. If we knew at which
> scanline each gpu increments its counter we could simply compare against
> scanline at counter query time and decide if we need to add 1 to the value
> or not. We could make the hardware counter value look like as if it is from
> a hardware counter that always increments at leading edge of vblank, which i
> think would be consistent with what the irq driven vblank increment does.
>
> Pseudocode (with bonus goto included!):
>
> // To be called from vblank irq on/off routines instead of
> driver->get_vblank_count(crtc):
> uint32 get_effective_hw_vblank_count(crtc)
> {
>
> retry:
>
> uint32 scanline_pre = driver->get_scanout_position(crtc);
> uint32 hw_count = driver->get_vblank_count(crtc);
> uint32 scanline_post = driver->get_scanout_position(crtc);
>
> if ((scanline_pre outside vblank) && (scanline_post outside vblank) {
> // Inside active scanout -> All counters stable -> no problem:
> return hw_count;
> }
>
> // Inside vblank -> careful!
> if (scanline_where_gpu_increments_its_counter intersects interval
> [scanline_pre ; scanline_post]) {
> // Exact time of get_vblank_count() query "uncertain" wrt. hw counter
> increment.
> cpu_relax(); // or something similar...
> goto retry;
> }
>
> // Inside vblank. Query happened before or after hw increment?
> if (scanline_post < scanline_where_gpu_increments_its_counter) {
> // Query happened before hw counter increment for sure. Fake
> // the increment has already happened:
> hw_count++;
> }
>
> return hw_count;
> }
>
> Something like this? The worst case busy waiting time would be maybe 2
> scanline durations ( < 50 microseconds) in the very rare case where we hit
> exactly the scanline where hw counter increments. That amount of busy
> waiting sounds acceptable to me, given that we'd still keep a vblank off
> delay of a few milliseconds to avoid many redundant on/off transitions
> during a typical OpenGL bufferswap and that this never gets directly called
> from interrupt context.
>
> We could put this into the drm, then the drivers would need to tell the drm
> the scanline where increment happens, or we could replace the
> driver->get_vblank_count() hook in each driver with some variant of this?
> Drivers with such a thing could lower the vblank off delay to a few msecs,
> other drivers would leave it at a high value.
I have some partly-written code to query the vblank count and scanout
position together (it'll be more efficient that way, I think, as well
as simpler). I'll see how it works tonight on i915.
For added fun, can we get notified when the system is about to go
idle? A decent heuristic for when to turn off vblanks might be if the
system goes idle with refcount == 0 or if a vblank happens that no one
cares about.
--Andy
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
