[RFC] Plane color pipeline KMS uAPI
Sebastian Wick
sebastian.wick at redhat.com
Fri May 5 15:57:37 UTC 2023
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:28 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 03:22:59PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The goal of this RFC is to expose a generic KMS uAPI to configure the color
> > pipeline before blending, ie. after a pixel is tapped from a plane's
> > framebuffer and before it's blended with other planes. With this new uAPI we
> > aim to reduce the battery life impact of color management and HDR on mobile
> > devices, to improve performance and to decrease latency by skipping
> > composition on the 3D engine. This proposal is the result of discussions at
> > the Red Hat HDR hackfest [1] which took place a few days ago. Engineers
> > familiar with the AMD, Intel and NVIDIA hardware have participated in the
> > discussion.
> >
> > This proposal takes a prescriptive approach instead of a descriptive approach.
> > Drivers describe the available hardware blocks in terms of low-level
> > mathematical operations, then user-space configures each block. We decided
> > against a descriptive approach where user-space would provide a high-level
> > description of the colorspace and other parameters: we want to give more
> > control and flexibility to user-space, e.g. to be able to replicate exactly the
> > color pipeline with shaders and switch between shaders and KMS pipelines
> > seamlessly, and to avoid forcing user-space into a particular color management
> > policy.
>
> Ack on the prescriptive approach, but generic imo. Descriptive pretty much
> means you need the shaders at the same api level for fallback purposes,
> and we're not going to have that ever in kms. That would need something
> like hwc in userspace to work.
Which would be nice to have but that would be forcing a specific color
pipeline on everyone and we explicitly want to avoid that. There are
just too many trade-offs to consider.
> And not generic in it's ultimate consquence would mean we just do a blob
> for a crtc with all the vendor register stuff like adf (android display
> framework) does, because I really don't see a point in trying a
> generic-looking-but-not vendor uapi with each color op/stage split out.
>
> So from very far and pure gut feeling, this seems like a good middle
> ground in the uapi design space we have here.
Good to hear!
> > We've decided against mirroring the existing CRTC properties
> > DEGAMMA_LUT/CTM/GAMMA_LUT onto KMS planes. Indeed, the color management
> > pipeline can significantly differ between vendors and this approach cannot
> > accurately abstract all hardware. In particular, the availability, ordering and
> > capabilities of hardware blocks is different on each display engine. So, we've
> > decided to go for a highly detailed hardware capability discovery.
> >
> > This new uAPI should not be in conflict with existing standard KMS properties,
> > since there are none which control the pre-blending color pipeline at the
> > moment. It does conflict with any vendor-specific properties like
> > NV_INPUT_COLORSPACE or the patches on the mailing list adding AMD-specific
> > properties. Drivers will need to either reject atomic commits configuring both
> > uAPIs, or alternatively we could add a DRM client cap which hides the vendor
> > properties and shows the new generic properties when enabled.
> >
> > To use this uAPI, first user-space needs to discover hardware capabilities via
> > KMS objects and properties, then user-space can configure the hardware via an
> > atomic commit. This works similarly to the existing KMS uAPI, e.g. planes.
> >
> > Our proposal introduces a new "color_pipeline" plane property, and a new KMS
> > object type, "COLOROP" (short for color operation). The "color_pipeline" plane
> > property is an enum, each enum entry represents a color pipeline supported by
> > the hardware. The special zero entry indicates that the pipeline is in
> > "bypass"/"no-op" mode. For instance, the following plane properties describe a
> > primary plane with 2 supported pipelines but currently configured in bypass
> > mode:
> >
> > Plane 10
> > ├─ "type": immutable enum {Overlay, Primary, Cursor} = Primary
> > ├─ …
> > └─ "color_pipeline": enum {0, 42, 52} = 0
>
> A bit confused, why is this an enum, and not just an immutable prop that
> points at the first element? You already can disable elements with the
> bypass thing, also bypassing by changing the pointers to the next node in
> the graph seems a bit confusing and redundant.
We want to allow multiple pipelines to exist and a plane can choose
the pipeline by selecting the first element of the pipeline. The enum
here lists all the possible pipelines that can be attached to the
surface.
> > The non-zero entries describe color pipelines as a linked list of COLOROP KMS
> > objects. The entry value is an object ID pointing to the head of the linked
> > list (the first operation in the color pipeline).
> >
> > The new COLOROP objects also expose a number of KMS properties. Each has a
> > type, a reference to the next COLOROP object in the linked list, and other
> > type-specific properties. Here is an example for a 1D LUT operation:
>
> Ok no comments from me on the actual color operations and semantics of all
> that, because I have simply nothing to bring to that except confusion :-)
>
> Some higher level thoughts instead:
>
> - I really like that we just go with graph nodes here. I think that was
> bound to happen sooner or later with kms (we almost got there with
> writeback, and with hindsight maybe should have).
>
> - Since there's other use-cases for graph nodes (maybe scaler modes, or
> histogram samplers for adaptive backglight, or blending that goes beyond
> the stacked alpha blending we have now) it think we should make this all
> fairly generic:
> * Add a new graph node kms object type.
> * Add a class type so that userspace knows which graph nodes it must
> understand for a feature (like "ColorOp" on planes here), and which it
> can ignore (like perhaps a scaler node to control the interpolation)
> * Probably need to adjust the object property type. Currently that
> accept any object of a given type (crtc, fb, blob are the major ones).
> I think for these graph nodes we want an explicit enumeration of the
> possible next objects. In kms thus far we've done that with the
> separate possible_* mask properties, but they're cumbersome.
> * It sounds like for now we only have immutable next pointers, so that
> would simplify the first iteration, but should probably anticipate all
> this.
Just to be clear: right now we don't expect any pipeline to be a graph
but only linked lists. It probably doesn't hurt to generalize this to
graphs but that's not what we want to do here (for now).
> - I think the graph node should be built on top of the driver private
> atomic obj/state stuff, and could then be further subclassed for
> specific types. It's a bit much stacking, but avoids too much wheel
> reinventing, and the worst boilerplate can be avoided with some macros
> that combine the pointer chasing with the containter_of upcast. With
> that you can easily build some helpers to walk the graph for a crtc or
> plane or whatever really.
>
> - I guess core atomic code should at least do the graph link validation
> and basic things like that, probably not really more to do. And
> validating the standard properties on some graph nodes ofc.
>
> - I have no idea how we should support the standardization of the state
> structures. Doing a separate subclass for each type sounds extremely
> painful, but unions otoh are ugly. Ideally type-indexed and type safe
> union but C isn't good enough for that. I do think that we should keep
> up the goal that standard properties are decoded into state structures
> in core atomic code, and not in each implementation individaully.
>
> - I think the only other precendent for something like this is the media
> control api in the media subystem. I think it'd be really good to get
> someone like Laurent to ack the graph node infrastructure to make sure
> we're missing any lesson they've learned already. If there's anything
> else we should pull these folks in too ofc.
>
> For merge plan I dropped some ideas already on Harry's rfc for
> vendor-private properties, the only thing to add is that we might want to
> type up the consensus plan into a merged doc like
> Documentation/gpu/rfc/hdr-plane.rst or whatever you feel like for a name.
>
> Cheers, Daniel
>
>
> >
> > Color operation 42
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 1D curve} = 1D curve
> > ├─ "1d_curve_type": enum {LUT, sRGB, PQ, BT.709, HLG, …} = LUT
> > ├─ "lut_size": immutable range = 4096
> > ├─ "lut_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 43
> >
> > To configure this hardware block, user-space can fill a KMS blob with 4096 u32
> > entries, then set "lut_data" to the blob ID. Other color operation types might
> > have different properties.
> >
> > Here is another example with a 3D LUT:
> >
> > Color operation 42
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 3D LUT} = 3D LUT
> > ├─ "lut_size": immutable range = 33
> > ├─ "lut_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 43
> >
> > And one last example with a matrix:
> >
> > Color operation 42
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, Matrix} = Matrix
> > ├─ "matrix_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 43
> >
> > [Simon note: having "Bypass" in the "type" enum, and making "type" mutable is
> > a bit weird. Maybe we can just add an "active"/"bypass" boolean property on
> > blocks which can be bypassed instead.]
> >
> > [Jonas note: perhaps a single "data" property for both LUTs and matrices
> > would make more sense. And a "size" prop for both 1D and 3D LUTs.]
> >
> > If some hardware supports re-ordering operations in the color pipeline, the
> > driver can expose multiple pipelines with different operation ordering, and
> > user-space can pick the ordering it prefers by selecting the right pipeline.
> > The same scheme can be used to expose hardware blocks supporting multiple
> > precision levels.
> >
> > That's pretty much all there is to it, but as always the devil is in the
> > details.
> >
> > First, we realized that we need a way to indicate where the scaling operation
> > is happening. The contents of the framebuffer attached to the plane might be
> > scaled up or down depending on the CRTC_W and CRTC_H properties. Depending on
> > the colorspace scaling is applied in, the result will be different, so we need
> > a way for the kernel to indicate which hardware blocks are pre-scaling, and
> > which ones are post-scaling. We introduce a special "scaling" operation type,
> > which is part of the pipeline like other operations but serves an informational
> > role only (effectively, the operation cannot be configured by user-space, all
> > of its properties are immutable). For example:
> >
> > Color operation 43
> > ├─ "type": immutable enum {Scaling} = Scaling
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 44
> >
> > [Simon note: an alternative would be to split the color pipeline into two, by
> > having two plane properties ("color_pipeline_pre_scale" and
> > "color_pipeline_post_scale") instead of a single one. This would be similar to
> > the way we want to split pre-blending and post-blending. This could be less
> > expressive for drivers, there may be hardware where there are dependencies
> > between the pre- and post-scaling pipeline?]
> >
> > Then, Alex from NVIDIA described how their hardware works. NVIDIA hardware
> > contains some fixed-function blocks which convert from LMS to ICtCp and cannot
> > be disabled/bypassed. NVIDIA hardware has been designed for descriptive APIs
> > where user-space provides a high-level description of the colorspace
> > conversions it needs to perform, and this is at odds with our KMS uAPI
> > proposal. To address this issue, we suggest adding a special block type which
> > describes a fixed conversion from one colorspace to another and cannot be
> > configured by user-space. Then user-space will need to accomodate its pipeline
> > for these special blocks. Such fixed hardware blocks need to be well enough
> > documented so that they can be implemented via shaders.
> >
> > We also noted that it should always be possible for user-space to completely
> > disable the color pipeline and switch back to bypass/identity without a
> > modeset. Some drivers will need to fail atomic commits for some color
> > pipelines, in particular for some specific LUT payloads. For instance, AMD
> > doesn't support curves which are too steep, and Intel doesn't support curves
> > which decrease. This isn't something which routinely happens, but there might
> > be more cases where the hardware needs to reject the pipeline. Thus, when
> > user-space has a running KMS color pipeline, then hits a case where the
> > pipeline cannot keep running (gets rejected by the driver), user-space needs to
> > be able to immediately fall back to shaders without any glitch. This doesn't
> > seem to be an issue for AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.
> >
> > This uAPI is extensible: we can add more color operations, and we can add more
> > properties for each color operation type. For instance, we might want to add
> > support for Intel piece-wise linear (PWL) 1D curves, or might want to advertise
> > the effective precision of the LUTs. The uAPI is deliberately somewhat minimal
> > to keep the scope of the proposal manageable.
> >
> > Later on, we plan to re-use the same machinery for post-blending color
> > pipelines. There are some more details about post-blending which have been
> > separately debated at the hackfest, but we believe it's a viable plan. This
> > solution would supersede the existing DEGAMMA_LUT/CTM/GAMMA_LUT properties, so
> > we'd like to introduce a client cap to hide the old properties and show the new
> > post-blending color pipeline properties.
> >
> > We envision a future user-space library to translate a high-level descriptive
> > color pipeline into low-level prescriptive KMS color pipeline ("libliftoff but
> > for color pipelines"). The library could also offer a translation into shaders.
> > This should help share more infrastructure between compositors and ease KMS
> > offloading. This should also help dealing with the NVIDIA case.
> >
> > To wrap things up, let's take a real-world example: how would gamescope [2]
> > configure the AMD DCN 3.0 hardware for its color pipeline? The gamescope color
> > pipeline is described in [3]. The AMD DCN 3.0 hardware is described in [4].
> >
> > AMD would expose the following objects and properties:
> >
> > Plane 10
> > ├─ "type": immutable enum {Overlay, Primary, Cursor} = Primary
> > └─ "color_pipeline": enum {0, 42} = 0
> > Color operation 42 (input CSC)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, Matrix} = Matrix
> > ├─ "matrix_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 43
> > Color operation 43
> > ├─ "type": enum {Scaling} = Scaling
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 44
> > Color operation 44 (DeGamma)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 1D curve} = 1D curve
> > ├─ "1d_curve_type": enum {sRGB, PQ, …} = sRGB
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 45
> > Color operation 45 (gamut remap)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, Matrix} = Matrix
> > ├─ "matrix_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 46
> > Color operation 46 (shaper LUT RAM)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 1D curve} = 1D curve
> > ├─ "1d_curve_type": enum {LUT} = LUT
> > ├─ "lut_size": immutable range = 4096
> > ├─ "lut_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 47
> > Color operation 47 (3D LUT RAM)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 3D LUT} = 3D LUT
> > ├─ "lut_size": immutable range = 17
> > ├─ "lut_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 48
> > Color operation 48 (blend gamma)
> > ├─ "type": enum {Bypass, 1D curve} = 1D curve
> > ├─ "1d_curve_type": enum {LUT, sRGB, PQ, …} = LUT
> > ├─ "lut_size": immutable range = 4096
> > ├─ "lut_data": blob
> > └─ "next": immutable color operation ID = 0
> >
> > To configure the pipeline for an HDR10 PQ plane (path at the top) and a HDR
> > display, gamescope would perform an atomic commit with the following property
> > values:
> >
> > Plane 10
> > └─ "color_pipeline" = 42
> > Color operation 42 (input CSC)
> > └─ "matrix_data" = PQ → scRGB (TF)
> > Color operation 44 (DeGamma)
> > └─ "type" = Bypass
> > Color operation 45 (gamut remap)
> > └─ "matrix_data" = scRGB (TF) → PQ
> > Color operation 46 (shaper LUT RAM)
> > └─ "lut_data" = PQ → Display native
> > Color operation 47 (3D LUT RAM)
> > └─ "lut_data" = Gamut mapping + tone mapping + night mode
> > Color operation 48 (blend gamma)
> > └─ "1d_curve_type" = PQ
> >
> > I hope comparing these properties to the diagrams linked above can help
> > understand how the uAPI would be used and give an idea of its viability.
> >
> > Please feel free to provide feedback! It would be especially useful to have
> > someone familiar with Arm SoCs look at this, to confirm that this proposal
> > would work there.
> >
> > Unless there is a show-stopper, we plan to follow up this RFC with
> > implementations for AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, gamescope, and IGT.
> >
> > Many thanks to everybody who contributed to the hackfest, on-site or remotely!
> > Let's work together to make this happen!
> >
> > Simon, on behalf of the hackfest participants
> >
> > [1]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Hackfests/ShellDisplayNext2023
> > [2]: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/gamescope
> > [3]: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/gamescope/blob/5af321724c8b8a29cef5ae9e31293fd5d560c4ec/src/docs/Steam%20Deck%20Display%20Pipeline.png
> > [4]: https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/_images/dcn3_cm_drm_current.svg
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
More information about the wayland-devel
mailing list