On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:56:01 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:38:41PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:46:10 -0800 > > Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Pekka, > > > > > > Thanks for the thoughts and review. I've tried to respond below: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:48:40 -0800 > > > > Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > A variety of applications have found it useful to listen to > > > > > user-initiated input events to make decisions within a DRM driver, given > > > > > that input events are often the first sign that we're going to start > > > > > doing latency-sensitive activities: > > > > > > > > > > * Panel self-refresh: software-directed self-refresh (e.g., with > > > > > Rockchip eDP) is especially latency sensitive. In some cases, it can > > > > > take 10s of milliseconds for a panel to exit self-refresh, which can > > > > > be noticeable. Rockchip RK3399 Chrome OS systems have always shipped > > > > > with an input_handler boost, that preemptively exits self-refresh > > > > > whenever there is input activity. > > > > > > > > > > * GPU drivers: on GPU-accelerated desktop systems, we may need to > > > > > render new frames immediately after user activity. Powering up the > > > > > GPU can take enough time that it is worthwhile to start this process > > > > > as soon as there is input activity. Many Chrome OS systems also ship > > > > > with an input_handler boost that powers up the GPU. > > > > > > > > > > This patch provides a small helper library that abstracts some of the > > > > > input-subsystem details around picking which devices to listen to, and > > > > > some other boilerplate. This will be used in the next patch to implement > > > > > the first bullet: preemptive exit for panel self-refresh. > > > > > > > > > > Bits of this are adapted from code the Android and/or Chrome OS kernels > > > > > have been carrying for a while. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Thanks Simon for the CC. > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > while this feature in general makes sense and sounds good, to start > > > > warming up display hardware early when something might start to happen, > > > > this particular proposal has many problems from UAPI perspective (as it > > > > has none). Comments below. > > > > > > > > Btw. if PSR is that slow to wake up from, how much do you actually gain > > > > from this input event watching? I would imagine the improvement to not > > > > be noticeable. > > > > > > Patch 2 has details. It's not really about precisely how slow PSR is, > > > but how much foresight we can gain: in patch 2, I note that with my > > > particular user space and system, I can start PSR-exit 50ms earlier than > > > I would otherweise. (FWIW, this measurement is exactly the same it was > > > with the original version written 4 years ago.) > > > > > > For how long PSR-exit takes: the measurements I'm able to do (via > > > ftrace) show that drm_self_refresh_transition() takes between 35 and 55 > > > ms. That's noticeable at 60 fps. And quite conveniently, the input-boost > > > manages to hide nearly 100% of that latency. > > > > > > Typical use cases where one notices PSR latency (and where this 35-55ms > > > matters) involve simply moving a cursor; it's very noticeable when you > > > have more than a few frames of latency to "get started". > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > that is very interesting, thanks. > > > > I would never have expected to have userspace take *that* long to > > react. But, that sounds like it could be just your userspace software > > stack. > > In the other subthread we're talking about making this more explicit. > Maybe we need to combine this with a "I expect to take this many > milliseconds to get the first frame out" value. > > That way compositors which take 50ms (which frankly is shocking slow) can > set that, and kms can enable sr exit (since sr exit will actually help > here). But other compositors which expect to get the first frame out in > maybe 20 can spec that, and then the driver will not sr exit (because too > high chances we'll just make shit slower), and instead will only boost > render clocks. > > Thoughts? I wonder if the compositor or the userspace stack can know how long it usually takes to prepare the first KMS submission after a pause. I guess it would need to measure that at runtime. Hmm, doable I guess, sure. Input to output latency in general is interesting. However, that sounds like a pretty vague API with the delay value. I think it has a high risk of regressing into a boolean toggle by userspace choosing an arbitrary number and then assuming the threshold in the driver is always the same. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpJY_aXlUTE2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
