I'd like to get a discussion going about submitting the Android sync driver to staging.
I know there is currently some very similar work going on with the dmabuf-fences, and rather then both approaches being worked out individually on their own, I suspect there could be better collaboration around this effort.
So my proposal is that we merge the Android sync driver into staging.
In my mind, this has the following benefits: 1) It allows other drivers that depend on the sync interface to also be submitted to staging, rather then forcing those drivers to be hidden away in various out of tree git repos, location unknown.
2) It would provide a baseline view to the upstream community of the interface Android is using, providing a real-world, active use case of the functionality.
Once the sync driver is in staging, if the dmabuf-fences work is fully sufficient to replace the Android sync driver, we should be able to whittle down the sync driver until its just a interface shim (and at which point efforts can be made to convert Android userland over to dmabuf-fences).
However, if the dmabuf-fences work is not fully sufficient to replace the android sync driver, we should be able to at least to whittle down the driver to those specific differences, which would provide a concrete example of where the dmabuf-fences, or other work may need to be expanded, or if maybe the sync driver is the better approach.
I've gone through the Android tree and reworked the sync driver to live in staging, while still preserving the full patch history/authorship. You can checkout the reworked patch queue here: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android-dev.git%3Ba=shortlog%3...
If folks would take a look and let me know what they think of the changes as well as what they think about pushing it to staging, or other ideas for how to improve collaboration so we can have common interfaces here, I'd appreciate it.
Also note: I've done this so far without any feedback from the Android devs (despite my reaching out to Erik a few times recently), so if they object to pushing it to staging, in deference to it being their code I'll back off, even though I do think it would be good to have the code get more visibility upstream in staging. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. :)
thanks -john
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 06:14:24PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
I'd like to get a discussion going about submitting the Android sync driver to staging.
I know there is currently some very similar work going on with the dmabuf-fences, and rather then both approaches being worked out individually on their own, I suspect there could be better collaboration around this effort.
So my proposal is that we merge the Android sync driver into staging.
In my mind, this has the following benefits:
- It allows other drivers that depend on the sync interface to also
be submitted to staging, rather then forcing those drivers to be hidden away in various out of tree git repos, location unknown.
- It would provide a baseline view to the upstream community of the
interface Android is using, providing a real-world, active use case of the functionality.
Once the sync driver is in staging, if the dmabuf-fences work is fully sufficient to replace the Android sync driver, we should be able to whittle down the sync driver until its just a interface shim (and at which point efforts can be made to convert Android userland over to dmabuf-fences).
Sounds like a good plan to me.
I've gone through the Android tree and reworked the sync driver to live in staging, while still preserving the full patch history/authorship. You can checkout the reworked patch queue here: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android-dev.git%3Ba=shortlog%3...
I can't really look at a git tree at the moment, but will always be glad to review patches. Feel free to send them on and we can look at them then :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:14 PM, John Stultz john.stultz@linaro.org wrote:
Also note: I've done this so far without any feedback from the Android devs (despite my reaching out to Erik a few times recently), so if they object to pushing it to staging, in deference to it being their code I'll back off, even though I do think it would be good to have the code get more visibility upstream in staging. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. :)
Yeah, sorry about that. I kept meaning to get back to you but kept getting distracted. A little background on the patches:
In Honeycomb where we introduced the Hardware Composer HAL. This is a userspace layer that allows composition acceleration on a per platform basis. Different SoC vendors have implemented this using overlays, 2d blitters, a combinations of both, or other clever/disgusting means. Along with the HWC we consolidated a lot of our camera and media pipeline to allow their input to be fed into the GPU or display(overlay.) In order to exploit parallelism the the graphics pipeline, this introduced lots of implicit synchronization dependancies. After a couple years of working with many different SoC vendors, we found that it was really difficult to communicate our system's expectations of the implicit contract and it was difficult for the SoC vendors to properly implement the implicit contract in each of their IP blocks (display, gpu, camera, video codecs). It was also incredibly difficult to debug when problems/deadlocks arose.
In an effort to clean up the situation we decided to create set of simple synchronization primitives and have our compositor (SurfaceFlinger) manage the synchronization contract explicitly. We designed these primitives so that they can be passed across processes (much like ion/dma_buf handles), can be backed by hardware synchronization primitives, and can be combined with other sync dependancies in a heterogeneous manner. We also added enough debugging information to make pinpointing a synchronization deadlock bug easier. There are also OpenGL extensions added (which I believe have been ratified by Khronos) to convert a "native" sync object to a gl fence object and vise versa.
So far shipped this system on two products (the Nexus 10 and 4) with two different SoCs (Samsung Exynos5250 and Qualcomm MSM8064.) These two projects were much easier to work out the kinks in the graphics/compositing pipelines. In addition we were able to use the telemetry and tracing features to track down the causes of dropped frames aka "jank."
As for the implementation, I started with having the main driver op primitive be a wait() op. I quickly noticed that most of the tricky race condition prone code was ending up in the drivers wait() op. It also made handling asynchronous waits of more than one type of sync_pt difficult to manage. In the end I opted for something roughly like poll() where all the heavy lifting is done at the high level and the drivers only need to implement a simple check function.
Happy to hear feedback and (especially) bug reports/fixes.
Cheers, Erik
On 02/27/2013 06:32 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 06:14:24PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
I'd like to get a discussion going about submitting the Android sync driver to staging.
I know there is currently some very similar work going on with the dmabuf-fences, and rather then both approaches being worked out individually on their own, I suspect there could be better collaboration around this effort.
So my proposal is that we merge the Android sync driver into staging.
In my mind, this has the following benefits:
- It allows other drivers that depend on the sync interface to also
be submitted to staging, rather then forcing those drivers to be hidden away in various out of tree git repos, location unknown.
- It would provide a baseline view to the upstream community of the
interface Android is using, providing a real-world, active use case of the functionality.
Once the sync driver is in staging, if the dmabuf-fences work is fully sufficient to replace the Android sync driver, we should be able to whittle down the sync driver until its just a interface shim (and at which point efforts can be made to convert Android userland over to dmabuf-fences).
Sounds like a good plan to me.
I've gone through the Android tree and reworked the sync driver to live in staging, while still preserving the full patch history/authorship. You can checkout the reworked patch queue here: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android-dev.git%3Ba=shortlog%3...
I can't really look at a git tree at the moment, but will always be glad to review patches. Feel free to send them on and we can look at them then :)
Ok, since I preserved the patch history, its currently 30 patches, and I didn't want to flood everyone's inboxes with patches (Greg: I know you'd never do such a thing! :) before making sure there weren't any objections to the idea in concept.
I'll send out the stack later today.
thanks -john
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
-
Erik Gilling -
Greg KH -
John Stultz