From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org
Subject: [Bug 79223] extra vsync when reading back pixels in xbmc
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 06:34:49 +0000
Message-ID:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0683326430=="
Return-path:
Received: from culpepper.freedesktop.org (unknown [131.252.210.165])
by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164666E6B5
for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "dri-devel"
To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
--===============0683326430==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1401777289.bbB710.12007"; charset="us-ascii"
--1401777289.bbB710.12007
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:34:48 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D79223
--- Comment #17 from Michel D=C3=A4nzer ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (In reply to comment #12)
> > > Down to dri2_drawable_get_buffers() now. I assume I'll be hitting a p=
oint
> > > where I'll have to switch over to looking in the X server soon...
> >=20
> > Yep, it's waiting for DRI2 buffer information from the X server, which =
is
> > delayed until the previous buffer swap actually finishes.
>=20
> Is that expected behaviour? I.e. am I chasing an already known limitation?
Yes, it's a limitation of DRI2 (at least without triple buffering, which is
hard to do with DRI2).
> The xbmc code seems to assume that those gl command will execute
> asynchronously as it is using querires to determine when the rendering and
> glReadPixels() is done.
glReadPixels is currently always synchronous with all Gallium based drivers=
, as
there's no hardware acceleration for PBOs yet.
> > FWIW, you might get somewhat less confusing timings if you call glFinis=
h()
> > before glXSwapBuffers().
>=20
> I'll play around with it. But that doesn't sound like a good solution
> upstream as I guess it will remove parallelism for the drivers that can do
> all of this in the background?
Of course, this wasn't intended as a solution but just as a debugging aid to
try and make your timings correspond better to where the time is actually s=
pent
in the driver / hardware.
That said, in the scenarios you described, there would need to be at least a
glFlush() call before waiting for vblank, otherwise the driver / hardware m=
ay
not even start actually rendering the frame before the glXSwapBuffers call.
(In reply to comment #16)
> I guess the behaviour that xbmc is expecting is that the only time it will
> wait for a vblank, is that explicit vblank waiting in step 2.?
>=20
> Now is that an unreasonable expectation?
I'm afraid so. It would be better to use something like GLX_OML_sync_contro=
l's
glXSwapBuffersMscOML() for timing buffer swaps, instead of explicitly waiti=
ng
for vblank and then calling glXSwapBuffers().
--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--1401777289.bbB710.12007
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:34:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Commen=
t # 17
on bug 79223<=
/a>
from Michel D=C3=A4nzer
(In reply to comment #=
14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (In reply to comment #12<=
/a>)
> > > Down to dri2_drawable_get_buffers() now. I assume I'll be hi=
tting a point
> > > where I'll have to switch over to looking in the X server so=
on...
> >=20
> > Yep, it's waiting for DRI2 buffer information from the X server, =
which is
> > delayed until the previous buffer swap actually finishes.
>=20
> Is that expected behaviour? I.e. am I chasing an already known limitat=
ion?
Yes, it's a limitation of DRI2 (at least without triple buffering, which is
hard to do with DRI2).
> The xbmc code seems to assume that those gl comm=
and will execute
> asynchronously as it is using querires to determine when the rendering=
and
> glReadPixels() is done.
glReadPixels is currently always synchronous with all Gallium based drivers=
, as
there's no hardware acceleration for PBOs yet.
> > FWIW, you might get somewhat less confusing=
timings if you call glFinish()
> > before glXSwapBuffers().
>=20
> I'll play around with it. But that doesn't sound like a good solution
> upstream as I guess it will remove parallelism for the drivers that ca=
n do
> all of this in the background?
Of course, this wasn't intended as a solution but just as a debugging aid to
try and make your timings correspond better to where the time is actually s=
pent
in the driver / hardware.
That said, in the scenarios you described, there would need to be at least a
glFlush() call before waiting for vblank, otherwise the driver / hardware m=
ay
not even start actually rendering the frame before the glXSwapBuffers call.
(In reply to comment #16)
> I guess the behaviour that xbmc is expecting is =
that the only time it will
> wait for a vblank, is that explicit vblank waiting in step 2.?
>=20
> Now is that an unreasonable expectation?
I'm afraid so. It would be better to use something like GLX_OML_sync_contro=
l's
glXSwapBuffersMscOML() for timing buffer swaps, instead of explicitly waiti=
ng
for vblank and then calling glXSwapBuffers().
You are receiving this mail because:
=20=20=20=20=20=20
- You are the assignee for the bug.
--1401777289.bbB710.12007--
--===============0683326430==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--===============0683326430==--