On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 12:01:30 -0700 Erik Jensen <rkjnsn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Hi, any kind of animation, while running, is a potential source of continuous fullscreen glitching, depending on how the display server works. Every key press etc. updating the screen could result in a temporary black screen in the worst case. Or it could be just fine. Or anything in between. It all depends on what the display server does and what you do and how (un)lucky you are. Wayland compositors may and will attempt to use all hardware (including overlay) planes to present windows, regardless of window content. Some have it implemented already, some are still working towards it. The use of hardware planes is completely automatic, applications do not need to specifically ask for it. Applications do have shortcuts they can take if they do specific things with Wayland, and these shortcuts are recommended because it has potential of making better use of the display hardware. These shortcuts are engineered to automatically take advantage of hardware overlay planes when available. With them, players can avoid using GL themselves. > > 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? You can try, yes. Make sure to use the new GetFB2 KMS ioctl to get the modifiers. Maybe I should underline the read/write race: You do not get notified when a display server updates the screen, so you poll. When your poll returns a new FB id, you don't know how long it has already been up, IOW you don't know how many milliseconds you have grace time before the display server can replace it with another FB. After the display server has replaced the FB again, it is free to render again into the FB you just got. When and what the display server renders, makes all the difference in what you get if you read the FB too late. E.g. the first thing a display server does could be to clear the FB to black. If you get your timings exactly wrong by accident, you will see nothing but black as long as anything is animating. Maybe even indefinitely if you don't, in addition to polling KMS state, also poll the contents of the FB you got. Timings are something you cannot test for in general. You can test on a specific machine with a specific display server and specific apps, but whether that generalises to any other machine or most other machines will be hard to tell without testing them. Simply some system load could push you to the "wrong timings" region. A different video mode will invalidate all your testing. This design cannot ever be reliable. > > 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. It does affect things. Not displaying an image can free up e.g. memory bandwidth, causing the DRM master to succeed in output configurations it cannot succeed if it was really driving the hardware. So the DRM master ends up in a state that cannot work, but it looks like it works because it's not actually done. When your curtaining then stops, who knows if the display server can recover, since the configuration in the kernel is something that cannot work. To get around that, the kernel itself could allocate a placeholder FB and show that instead of the FB from the display server, but then you need all that faking complexity in the kernel. Using a different FB from what the display server programs may also change hardware state enough, that the consequences can leak: e.g. different pixel formats and modifiers consume different amounts of memory bandwidth. > 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. I am very much trying to scare you with the worst case theoretical scenarios, because I think this is a really bad idea. > > 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. Why would that not have exactly the problem I mentioned? Do you expect your users to figure out what keymap is in effect in the server, and manually configure the same in your remote client, then hope it doesn't change? Keymaps can be user customised as well, so maybe your client does not even have a matching one. Or maybe you require users to reconfigure their desktop keymap to match the remote viewer? > > 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. Unfortunate, but it's the reality today. If you wanted to do the capture properly, there are alternatives: - a virtual DRM driver like VKMS (upstream) or EVDI (not upstream), which the display servers need to use explicitly - running the desktop in a VM, let the VM handle the grabbing - create your own Wayland compositor designed for your remoting and hosting a session Wayland compositor (nested compositor architecture) None meet your exact requirements though. > 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.) Indeed. > 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. I'm very pessimistic about that. I worry it creates issues for everyone else, while your scheme won't work properly anyway. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpT5Z1ceInHn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
