Hi Daniel, > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 08:21:09AM +0000, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 07:27:13AM +0000, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote: > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> The solution: > > > > > > > > >>> - To ensure full framerate, the Guest compositor has to start it's repaint > > > cycle > > > > > > > (including > > > > > > > > >>> the 9 ms wait) when the Host compositor sends the frame callback event > to > > > its > > > > > > > clients. > > > > > > > > >>> In order for this to happen, the dma-fence that the Guest KMS waits on - > - > > > before > > > > > > > sending > > > > > > > > >>> pageflip completion -- cannot be tied to a wl_buffer.release event. This > > > means > > > > > that, > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>> Guest compositor has to be forced to use a new buffer for its next > repaint > > > cycle > > > > > > > when it > > > > > > > > >>> gets a pageflip completion. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Is that really the only solution? > > > > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] There are a few others I mentioned here: > > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/-/issues/514#note_986572 > > > > > > > > > But I think none of them are as compelling as this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> If we fix the event timestamps so that both guest and host use the same > > > > > > > > >> timestamp, but then the guest starts 5ms (or something like that) earlier, > > > > > > > > >> then things should work too? I.e. > > > > > > > > >> - host compositor starts at (previous_frametime + 9ms) > > > > > > > > >> - guest compositor starts at (previous_frametime + 4ms) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Ofc this only works if the frametimes we hand out to both match > _exactly_ > > > > > > > > >> and are as high-precision as the ones on the host side. Which for many > gpu > > > > > > > > >> drivers at least is the case, and all the ones you care about for sure :-) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> But if the frametimes the guest receives are the no_vblank fake ones, > then > > > > > > > > >> they'll be all over the place and this carefully tuned low-latency redraw > > > > > > > > >> loop falls apart. Aside fromm the fact that without tuning the guests to > > > > > > > > >> be earlier than the hosts, you're guaranteed to miss every frame (except > > > > > > > > >> when the timing wobbliness in the guest is big enough by chance to make > > > > > > > > >> the deadline on the oddball frame). > > > > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] The Guest and Host use different event timestamps as > we > > > don't > > > > > > > > > share these between the Guest and the Host. It does not seem to be causing > any > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > problems so far but we did try the experiment you mentioned (i.e., > adjusting > > > the > > > > > > > delays) > > > > > > > > > and it works. However, this patch series is meant to fix the issue without > > > having to > > > > > > > tweak > > > > > > > > > anything (delays) because we can't do this for every compositor out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe there could be a mechanism which allows the compositor in the guest > to > > > > > > > automatically adjust its repaint cycle as needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This might even be possible without requiring changes in each compositor, > by > > > > > adjusting > > > > > > > the vertical blank periods in the guest to be aligned with the host compositor > > > repaint > > > > > > > cycles. Not sure about that though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if not, both this series or making it possible to queue multiple flips > require > > > > > > > corresponding changes in each compositor as well to have any effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah from all the discussions and tests done it sounds even with a > > > > > > > deeper queue we have big coordination issues between the guest and > > > > > > > host compositor (like the example that the guest is now rendering at > > > > > > > 90fps instead of 60fps like the host). > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] Oh, I think you are referring to my reply to Gerd. That 90 > FPS vs > > > > > > 60 FPS problem is a completely different issue that is associated with Qemu > GTK UI > > > > > > backend. With the GTK backend -- and also with SDL backend -- we Blit the > Guest > > > > > > scanout FB onto one of the backbuffers managed by EGL. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to add a new Qemu Wayland UI backend so that we can eliminate > that > > > Blit > > > > > > and thereby have a truly zero-copy solution. And, this is there I am running into > the > > > > > > halved frame-rate issue -- the current problem. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's what I referenced. But I disagree that it's a different > > > > > problem. The underlying problem in both cases is that the guest and host > > > > > compositor free-wheel instead of rendering in sync. It's just that > > > > > depending upon how exactly the flip completion event on the gues side > > > > > plays out you either get guest rendering that's faster than the host-side > > > > > 60fps, or guest rendering that's much slower than the host-side 60fps. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] That used to be the case before we added a synchronization > > > > mechanism to the GTK UI backend that uses a sync file. After adding this > > > > and making the Guest wait until this sync file fd on the Host is signaled, we > > > > consistently get 60 FPS because the flip completion event for the Guest is > > > > directly tied to the signaling of the sync file in this particular case (GTK UI). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fundamental problem in both cases is that they don't run in lockstep. > > > > > If you fix that, through fixing the timestamp and even reporting most > > > > > likely, you should be able to fix both bugs. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] GTK UI is an EGL based solution that Blits the Guest scanout > > > > FB onto one of the backbuffers managed by EGL. Wayland UI is a zero-copy > > > > solution that just wraps the dmabuf associated with Guest scanout FB in a > > > > wl_buffer and submits it directly to the Host compositor. These backends are > > > > completely independent of each other and cannot be active at the same time. > > > > In other words, we cannot have zero-copy and Blit based solutions running > > > > parallelly. And, this issue is only relevant for Wayland UI backend and has > > > > nothing to do with GTK UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence my gut feeling reaction that first we need to get these two > > > > > > > compositors aligned in their timings, which propobably needs > > > > > > > consistent vblank periods/timestamps across them (plus/minux > > > > > > > guest/host clocksource fun ofc). Without this any of the next steps > > > > > > > will simply not work because there's too much jitter by the time the > > > > > > > guest compositor gets the flip completion events. > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] Timings are not a problem and do not significantly > > > > > > affect the repaint cycles from what I have seen so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once we have solid events I think we should look into statically > > > > > > > tuning guest/host compositor deadlines (like you've suggested in a > > > > > > > bunch of places) to consisently make that deadline and hit 60 fps. > > > > > > > With that we can then look into tuning this automatically and what to > > > > > > > do when e.g. switching between copying and zero-copy on the host side > > > > > > > (which might be needed in some cases) and how to handle all that. > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] As I confirm here: > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/- > > > > > /issues/514#note_984065 > > > > > > tweaking the deadlines works (i.e., we get 60 FPS) as we expect. However, > > > > > > I feel that this zero-copy solution I am trying to create should be independent > > > > > > of compositors' deadlines, delays or other scheduling parameters. > > > > > > > > > > That's not how compositors work nowadays. Your problem is that you don't > > > > > have the guest/host compositor in sync. zero-copy only changes the timing, > > > > > so it changes things from "rendering way too many frames" to "rendering > > > > > way too few frames". > > > > > > > > > > We need to fix the timing/sync issue here first, not paper over it with > > > > > hacks. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] What I really meant is that the zero-copy solution should be > > > > independent of the scheduling policies to ensure that it works with all compositors. > > > > IIUC, Weston for example uses the vblank/pageflip completion timestamp, the > > > > configurable repaint-window value, refresh-rate, etc to determine when to start > > > > its next repaint -- if there is any damage: > > > > timespec_add_nsec(&output->next_repaint, stamp, refresh_nsec); > > > > timespec_add_msec(&output->next_repaint, &output->next_repaint, -compositor- > > > >repaint_msec); > > > > > > > > And, in the case of VKMS, since there is no real hardware, the timestamp is always: > > > > now = ktime_get(); > > > > send_vblank_event(dev, e, seq, now); > > > > > > vkms has been fixed since a while to fake high-precision timestamps like > > > from a real display. > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] IIUC, that might be one of the reasons why the Guest does not need > > to have the same timestamp as that of the Host -- to work as expected. > > > > > > > > > When you say that the Guest/Host compositor need to stay in sync, are you > > > > suggesting that we need to ensure that the vblank timestamp on the Host > > > > needs to be shared and be the same on the Guest and a vblank/pageflip > > > > completion for the Guest needs to be sent at exactly the same time it is sent > > > > on the Host? If yes, I'd say that we do send the pageflip completion to Guest > > > > around the same time a vblank is generated on the Host but it does not help > > > > because the Guest compositor would only have 9 ms to submit a new frame > > > > and if the Host is running Mutter, the Guest would only have 2 ms. > > > > (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/-/issues/514#note_984341) > > > > > > Not at the same time, but the same timestamp. And yes there is some fun > > > there, which is I think the fundamental issue. Or at least some of the > > > compositor experts seem to think so, and it makes sense to me. > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] It is definitely possible that if the timestamp is messed up, then > > the Guest repaint cycle would be affected. However, I do not believe that is the case > > here given the debug and instrumentation data we collected and scrutinized. Hopefully, > > compositor experts could chime in to shed some light on this matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only, and I really mean only, when that shows that it's simply impossible > > > > > to hit 60fps with zero-copy and the guest/host fully aligned should we > > > > > look into making the overall pipeline deeper. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] From all the experiments conducted so far and given the > > > > discussion associated with https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/- > /issues/514 > > > > I think we have already established that in order for a zero-copy solution to work > > > > reliably, the Guest compositor needs to start its repaint cycle when the Host > > > > compositor sends a frame callback event to its clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only when that all shows that we just can't hit 60fps consistently and > > > > > > > really need 3 buffers in flight should we look at deeper kms queues. > > > > > > > And then we really need to implement them properly and not with a > > > > > > > mismatch between drm_event an out-fence signalling. These quick hacks > > > > > > > are good for experiments, but there's a pile of other things we need > > > > > > > to do first. At least that's how I understand the problem here right > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] Experiments done so far indicate that we can hit 59 FPS > > > consistently > > > > > > -- in a zero-copy way independent of compositors' delays/deadlines -- with this > > > > > > patch series + the Weston MR I linked in the cover letter. The main reason why > this > > > > > > works is because we relax the assumption that when the Guest compositor gets a > > > > > > pageflip completion event that it could reuse the old FB it submitted in the > previous > > > > > > atomic flip and instead force it to use a new one. And, we send the pageflip > > > completion > > > > > > event to the Guest when the Host compositor sends a frame callback event. > Lastly, > > > > > > we use the (deferred) out_fence as just a mechanism to tell the Guest compositor > > > when > > > > > > it can release references on old FBs so that they can be reused again. > > > > > > > > > > > > With that being said, the only question is how can we accomplish the above in an > > > > > upstream > > > > > > acceptable way without regressing anything particularly on bare-metal. Its not > clear > > > if > > > > > just > > > > > > increasing the queue depth would work or not but I think the Guest compositor > has to > > > be > > > > > told > > > > > > when it can start its repaint cycle and when it can assume the old FB is no longer > in > > > use. > > > > > > On bare-metal -- and also with VKMS as of today -- a pageflip completion > indicates > > > > > both. > > > > > > In other words, Vblank event is the same as Flip done, which makes sense on > bare- > > > metal. > > > > > > But if we were to have two events at-least for VKMS: vblank to indicate to > Guest to > > > start > > > > > > repaint and flip_done to indicate to drop references on old FBs, I think this > problem > > > can > > > > > > be solved even without increasing the queue depth. Can this be acceptable? > > > > > > > > > > That's just another flavour of your "increase queue depth without > > > > > increasing the atomic queue depth" approach. I still think the underlying > > > > > fundamental issue is a timing confusion, and the fact that adjusting the > > > > > timings fixes things too kinda proves that. So we need to fix that in a > > > > > clean way, not by shuffling things around semi-randomly until the specific > > > > > config we tests works. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] This issue is not due to a timing or timestamp mismatch. We > > > > have carefully instrumented both the Host and Guest compositors and measured > > > > the latencies at each step. The relevant debug data only points to the scheduling > > > > policy -- of both Host and Guest compositors -- playing a role in Guest rendering > > > > at 30 FPS. > > > > > > Hm but that essentially means that the events your passing around have an > > > even more ad-hoc implementation specific meaning: Essentially it's the > > > kick-off for the guest's repaint loop? That sounds even worse for a kms > > > uapi extension. > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] The pageflip completion event/vblank event indeed serves as the > > kick-off for a compositor's (both Guest and Host) repaint loop. AFAICT, Weston > > works that way and even if we increase the queue depth to solve this problem, I don't > > think it'll help because the arrival of this event always indicates to a compositor to > > start its repaint cycle again and assume that the previous buffers are all free. > > I thought this is how simple compositors work, and weston has since a > while it's own timer, which is based on the timestamp it gets (at on > drivers with vblank support), so that it starts the repaint loop a few ms > before the next vblank. And not immediately when it receives the old page > flip completion event. [Kasireddy, Vivek] Right, Weston does use a timer (named repaint_timer) to determine when to start its next repaint cycle. And, IIUC, the way it works is it uses the Vblank timestamp and refresh rate to calculate the cycle length and then deduct the configurable "repaint-window" to calculate the delay. So, for a refresh rate of 60 Hz, which implies a cycle length of ~16.66 ms, and a default repaint-window value of 7 ms, the delay would be ~9 ms. Therefore, from the current vblank timestamp, it waits for ~9 ms before starting repaint again. The above behavior is identical for both bare-metal and also with virtual KMS Guest drivers that use fake vblank events. However, it does all the above things only after getting a pageflip completion event. > > Ofc if the flip completion event is late, it needs to delay the repaint > cycle. > > > > > > Iow I think we need a solution here which both slows down the 90fps to > > > > > 60fps for the blit case, and the 30fps speed up to 60fps for the zerocopy > > > > > case. Because the host might need to switch transparently between blt and > > > > > zerocopy for various reasons. > > > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] As I mentioned above, the Host (Qemu) cannot switch UI > > > > backends at runtime. In other words, with GTK UI backend, it is always Blit > > > > whereas Wayland UI backend is always zero-copy. > > > > > > Hm ok, that at least makes things somewhat simpler. Another thing that I > > > just realized: What happens when the host changes screen resolution and > > > especially refresh rate? > > [Kasireddy, Vivek] AFAICT, if the Host changes resolution or if the Qemu UI window > > is resized, then that'll trigger a Guest KMS modeset -- via drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(). > > As far as the refresh rate is concerned, if Qemu is launched with GTK UI backend, > > then the "render signal" GTK sends out to apps would reflect the new refresh rate. > > And, since the internal dma-fence is tied to this "render signal", Guest updates are > > automatically synchronized to the new refresh rate. > > Yeah, the problem is that right now kms uapi assumes that the refresh rate > doesn't just randomly change underneath the compositor. Which with kvm it > does, which is a bit annoying. And without the refresh rate the guest > compositor can't really time it's repaint loop properly. [Kasireddy, Vivek] The Guest compositor would get notified via UDEV if the Host does a modeset because Guest KMS would trigger a hotplug. However, I think having a refresh rate that is different between Guest and Host compositors is not desirable. > > > If Qemu is launched with the Wayland UI backend, then the internal dma-fence would > > be tied to the wl_buffer.release event. And, if Qemu UI's buffer is flipped onto a > > hardware plane, then the compositor sends this event out after it gets a pageflip > > completion. Therefore, the Guest would start its repaint cycle at Host vblank but > > whether it would submit its frame in time would depend on the scheduling policy -- > > of both Host and Guest compositors. > > Yeah this is all very tightly tied together, which is why I think we need > something that looks at the entire picture. And not so much a quick change > somewhere with badly defined semantics that happens to work in specific > cases. Which I think is what we have here. [Kasireddy, Vivek] I think it is time to discuss and come up with correct semantics in order to ensure that this solution works without being affected by the scheduling policy of either compositors. AFAICT, for this to work, the Guest compositor needs two signals/fences -- or events: one to tell it to start repaint cycle (vblank event) and the other to tell it to release references on old FBs (flip done event) instead of just pageflip completion event. And, we might want to limit this to only virtual KMS drivers. Thanks, Vivek > -Daniel > > > > > Thanks, > > Vivek > > > > > -Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Vivek > > > > > > > > > -Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Vivek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com > > > > > > > > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Daniel Vetter > > > > > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > > > > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Daniel Vetter > > > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch > > > > > > -- > > > Daniel Vetter > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch
