Hi Laurent, Hans,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 06:21:41PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 04:48:55PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On 28/10/2024 16:30, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 04:02:13PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >> On 28/10/2024 15:35, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > >>> There apparently is no reason to require 3 queued buffers to call
> > >>> streamon() for the RkISP1 as the driver operates with a scratch buffer
> > >>> where frames can be directed to if there's no available buffer provided
> > >>> by userspace.
> > >>>
> > >>> Reduce the number of required buffers to 0 to allow applications to
> > >>> operate by queueing capture buffers on-demand.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tested with libcamera, by operating with a single capture request. The
> > >>> same request (and associated capture buffer) gets recycled once
> > >>> completed. This of course causes a frame rate drop but doesn't hinder
> > >>> operations.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> The first version of this patch set min_queued_buffers to 1, but setting it
> > >>> to 0 doesn't compromise operations and it's even better as it allows application
> > >>> to queue buffers to the capture devices on-demand. If a buffer is not provided
> > >>> to the DMA engines, image data gets directed to the driver's internal scratch
> > >>> buffer.
> > >>> ---
> > >>> drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c | 4 +---
> > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c b/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> > >>> index 2bddb4fa8a5c..5fcf9731f41b 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> > >>> @@ -35,8 +35,6 @@
> > >>> #define RKISP1_SP_DEV_NAME RKISP1_DRIVER_NAME "_selfpath"
> > >>> #define RKISP1_MP_DEV_NAME RKISP1_DRIVER_NAME "_mainpath"
> > >>>
> > >>> -#define RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED 3
> > >>> -
> > >>> enum rkisp1_plane {
> > >>> RKISP1_PLANE_Y = 0,
> > >>> RKISP1_PLANE_CB = 1,
> > >>> @@ -1563,7 +1561,7 @@ static int rkisp1_register_capture(struct rkisp1_capture *cap)
> > >>> q->ops = &rkisp1_vb2_ops;
> > >>> q->mem_ops = &vb2_dma_contig_memops;
> > >>> q->buf_struct_size = sizeof(struct rkisp1_buffer);
> > >>> - q->min_queued_buffers = RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED;
> > >>> + q->min_queued_buffers = 0;
> > >>
> > >> You can probably just drop this since the vb2_queue struct is zeroed when it
> > >> is allocated. So no need to set it to 0.
> > >
> > > I suspected so :)
> > >
> > >>
> > >> And is the RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED define still needed after this change?
> > >
> > > No, and this patch removes it in facts
> > >
> > > -#define RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED 3
> > > -
> >
> > I should have checked the patch :-) Sorry for the noise.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Also, see my RFC I posted today:
> > >>
> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/126cd76a-6224-483b-a18d-a3cc89e5ff2d@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > >>
> > >> My main concern is that applications that just call VIDIOC_REQBUFS with count = 1
> > >> and expect the driver to change that to a workable value, will, in fact, now just get
> > >> one buffer. And streaming that will cause lots of frame drops.
> > >>
> > >> It makes sense to leave min_queued_buffers at 0 if a scratch buffer is available,
> > >> but I'm unhappy with the fact that you get a poor experience when REQBUFS(1) is called.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I've read the discussion between you and Tomi and it seemed like
> > > a good time to re-send this patch.
> > >
> > >> My RFC suggests improvements in the uAPI. With that in place you can use CREATE_BUFS in
> > >> libcamera to get much better control over how many buffers should be allocated.
> > >
> > > In my understanding min_queued_buffers identifies how many buffers
> > > should be queued before calling start_streaming, and this comes
> > > directly from an hw/driver requirement. This doesn't mean that at
> > > least min_queue_buffers should be queued at all the times during
> > > streaming, at least, I don't see how and where videobuf2 enforces
> > > this. Or does it ?
> >
> > It's an intrinsic property of the HW/driver: e.g. if it needs two buffers
> > queued up for the DMA engine to work, then it really is always holding on
> > to two buffers. The only thing the framework does is postpone calling
> > start_streaming until that number of buffers is queued to ensure the
> > DMA engine has what it needs to start. But after that vb2 doesn't check
> > it.
>
> The "driver" part of "HW/driver" is important here, as drivers can
> influence this in multiple ways. One of them is usage of scratch
> buffers, but even without that, a DMA engine that requires two buffers
> can easily be operated with a single buffer by programming the DMA
> engine with the same buffer address twice. Drivers should really do so
> unless they really can't.
>
> > > If the above is correct, then the number of buffers to be queued
> > > during streaming is, in my opinion, less an hw/driver requirement but
> > > more an application decision.
> >
> > No, min_queued_buffers is a HW/drivers property: the DMA engine can't
> > start until that many buffers are queued up, and once it is started
> > it will always hold on to that many buffers.
I get it, my point was that once start_streaming has been called, even
if min_queued_buffers=2, there is nothing preventing userspace from
queing one buffer at the time once the first two have completed. Sure, the
hw/driver might not like it, but while delaying start_streaming
prevents bad things from happening, there is nothing in the core that
prevents applications from potentially stalling the capture
operations.
But I get your point, if the system needs 2 buffers to start
streaming, it will probably need two buffers to continue producing
frames.
>
> That's not always true. The imx7-media-csi driver, for instance, sets
> min_queued_buffers to 2, but allocates scratch buffers and uses them at
> runtime, so that it can return all queued buffers to userspace.
That's interesting. From your mention of "scratch buffers" I get there
actually is a need to have 2 buffers queued to the HW ? How does
that work, after all queuing a buffer to the DMA engine usually means
pointing its write engine to one (set of) addresses.
Or is it a driver-only requirement to ask for two buffers ?
> Grepping for min_queued_buffers I see drivers setting it to 4
> (rcar-dma.c, rzg2l-video.c), 6 (cxusb-analog.c) or even 9
> (zoran_driver.c) ! I doubt the zoran driver holds on to 9 buffers at
> runtime. Your statement is not universally true today?.
>
> This could be considered as driver issues, and the min_queued_buffers
> values should be fixed to match the runtime behaviour. In some cases I
> expect it will require more work than just changing the value, as
> drivers may implement the logic to operate with less buffers at runtime
> but not at start time. This would be fixable, but it may also call for
> asking if the start at runtime behaviours need to be identical.
>
> > So the application has to know somehow how many buffers are needed to
> > actually stream. One way is via VIDIOC_REQBUFS since that is supposed to
> > always return a workable number of buffers, the other is by actually
> > reporting the minimum number of buffers as per my RFC.
> >
> > > As you said an application should be good with> 3 buffers (one queued, one currently being written to, one to be
> > > consumed by the application), but in very specific cases where an
> > > application retains the buffer for longer, for whatever reason, it
> > > might need a larger number of queued buffers to provide the DMA
> > > engines a space where to write data without them being discarded (to
> > > scratch buffers or discarded by the DMA engine itself, if the HW
> > > supports that). Or maybe an application is fine to drop frames and
> > > only queue buffers sporadically (if the HW supports that ofc).
> > >
> > > For libcamera, and for this specific platform in particular, we're
> > > going to base new developments on the assumption that
> > > min_queued_buffers == 0, and it would be more convenient for use to be
> > > able to access its value from userspace to identify if we're running
> > > on a kernel with or without this patch being applied.
> >
> > So my proposal in my RFC to expose min_num_buffers would work for libcamera?
> > It sounds like that's what you need.
>
My immediate need is to know if I'm running on a "legacy" version of
this driver that still requires 3 buffers for no apparent reason, or
on a new version. Your proposal might work, but I still feel like we
should report the HW/driver requirement (min_queued_buffers) instead
of trying to suggest applications how many buffers they need to
allocate to get "smooth streaming" or similar, as the use cases
might be different.
> It may be useful, but I think we may also just require min_num_buffers
> == 0 for a device to be supported in libcamera. We have to implement
While I concur this would be ideal, how would it work for existing
rkisp1 implementation that do not include this patch ? libcamera
should be able to run on both, probably in two different "modes" /o\
> APIs such as the Android camera HAL that has no concept of buffers being
> kept by the device. This could possibly be handled within libcamera by
> allocating scratch buffers in userspace, but that comes with other
> challenges. I would like to at least try to get help from the kernel
> until proven that it's a bad idea.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
