Thanks for the reply! (And thanks Simon for the pointer to ffmpeg.) > Screen scraping like that will have big problems trying to a) > synchronize to the display updates correctly (was the screen > updated, did you get old or new frame, and you have to poll rather > than be notified), and b) synchronizing framebuffer reads vs. > writes (is the display server re-using the buffer when you are > still reading it). You also get to handle each KMS plane > individually. We're not too concerned with every frame being perfect, as long as there aren't frequent annoying artifacts and the user receives feedback to typing and mouse movement in a reasonable amount of time. (Think browsing the web, not playing a video game.) I'll play around with ffmpeg's kmsgrab and see what we might expect on that front. Obviously we'd have to handle the hardware cursor in addition to the primary plane at the very least. Not sure how common video overlays are these days? It seems most players render via GL, now. > You have to adapt to what the display server does and you have no > way to negotiate better configurations. The framebuffers could be > tiled and/or compressed, and quite likely are the kind of memory > that is very slow to read by CPU, at least directly. Yeah, I see ffmpeg has some examples of feeding frames through VAAPI to handle situations where the buffer isn't CPU mapped. Maybe EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import could also be useful here? > It obviously needs elevated privileges, because you are stealing > data behind the display server's back. Then you are feeding it > through network. Yes. It is expected that elevation would be required at the very least to grab the dma_buf fds and activate the proposed curtaining mode. > The curtaining goes against the policy that the current DRM master > is in full control of the display. It also means the kernel has to > lie to the DRM master to make the display server unaware of the > funny business, and I don't like that at all. The hope was that this could be done without interfering with the DRM master at all. The DRM master could still control resolutions, displays, determine which CRTCs go to what outputs, et cetera. It's just that the content wouldn't actually be visible on the screen while curtaining was enabled, conceptually similarly to if the physical displays themselves were configured not to display anything (e.g., switched to a different input, or brightness set to zero), which also wouldn't affect output and mode selection. If this could be implemented in a relatively simple way (i.e., curtaining sets a flag that suppresses the actual scan out to the display, but everything else stays the same), it seems like it could be a worthwhile avenue to explore. On the other hand, if it requires adding a lot of complexity (e.g., maintaining a completely separate physical configuration for the graphics card and "shadow" configuration to report to the DRM master), I would certainly concur that it doesn't make sense to do. Which is closer to the truth is one of the things I was hoping to find out from this e-mail. > With uinput, you will be having fun issues trying to guess what > keymaps the display server and apps might be using, since you need > to know that to be able to manufacture the right evdev keycodes > that will be translated into the keysyms you actually wanted. > Keymaps can change dynamically, too. This isn't a concern to us, as we plan to transmit keycodes and leave the keyboard mapping to the remote machine. > I believe it would much better to cooperate with display servers > than trying to bypass and fool them. Maybe look towards Pipewire at > least for the screen capturing API? I agree that this could create a better experience for some use cases if supported by all components. Unfortunately, the variety of graphical login managers, display servers, and desktop environments with different amounts of resources and priorities means that coming up with a solution that works for all of them seems untenable. It would also preclude being able to use the console remotely. Chrome Remote Desktop currently spins up its own display server (Xvfb) that's not attached to the local displays at all, but that has its own issues: the user can't interact with programs running in their existing local session, a number of programs don't support running multiple instances simultaneously using the same profile (e.g. Chrome, Firefox, IntelliJ), and in general things seem to be moving in the direction of assuming there will only ever be at most one graphical session at a time for each user. (E.g., DBUS using a single user bus in place of a per-session bus on many distributions. Also see https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdm/-/issues/580, where GDM will fail to log a user in locally at all if a graphical PAM session already exists for the user, even if no programs are running in that session.) Our hope is that interacting at the kernel level can avoid all of these issues, especially given that frame grabbing (albeit imperfect) and input injection are already supported by the kernel, with curtaining being the only thing that does not already have an existing interface. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
