[Mesa-dev] Linux Graphics Next: Userspace submission update

Marek Olšák maraeo at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 09:34:28 UTC 2021

Yes, we can't break anything because we don't want to complicate things for
us. It's pretty much all NAK'd already. We are trying to gather more
knowledge and then make better decisions.

The idea we are considering is that we'll expose memory-based sync objects
to userspace for read only, and the kernel or hw will strictly control the
memory writes to those sync objects. The hole in that idea is that
userspace can decide not to signal a job, so even if userspace can't
overwrite memory-based sync object states arbitrarily, it can still decide
not to signal them, and then a future fence is born.


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:57 AM Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 13:51, Christian König
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am 01.06.21 um 14:30 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > If you want to enable this use-case with driver magic and without the
> > > compositor being aware of what's going on, the solution is EGLStreams.
> > > Not sure we want to go there, but it's definitely a lot more feasible
> > > than trying to stuff eglstreams semantics into dma-buf implicit
> > > fencing support in a desperate attempt to not change compositors.
> >
> > Well not changing compositors is certainly not something I would try
> > with this use case.
> >
> > Not changing compositors is more like ok we have Ubuntu 20.04 and need
> > to support that we the newest hardware generation.
> Serious question, have you talked to Canonical?
> I mean there's a hell of a lot of effort being expended here, but it
> seems to all be predicated on the assumption that Ubuntu's LTS
> HWE/backport policy is totally immutable, and that we might need to
> make the kernel do backflips to work around that. But ... is it? Has
> anyone actually asked them how they feel about this?
> I mean, my answer to the first email is 'no, absolutely not' from the
> technical perspective (the initial proposal totally breaks current and
> future userspace), from a design perspective (it breaks a lot of
> usecases which aren't single-vendor GPU+display+codec, or aren't just
> a simple desktop), and from a sustainability perspective (cutting
> Android adrift again isn't acceptable collateral damage to make it
> easier to backport things to last year's Ubuntu release).
> But then again, I don't even know what I'm NAKing here ... ? The
> original email just lists a proposal to break a ton of things, with
> proposed replacements which aren't technically viable, and it's not
> clear why? Can we please have some more details and some reasoning
> behind them?
> I don't mind that userspace (compositor, protocols, clients like Mesa
> as well as codec APIs) need to do a lot of work to support the new
> model. I do really care though that the hard-binary-switch model works
> fine enough for AMD but totally breaks heterogeneous systems and makes
> it impossible for userspace to do the right thing.
> Cheers,
> Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20210602/9a7cd686/attachment.htm>

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list