Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC RESEND] virtio-video: Add virtio video device specification

Christophe de Dinechin
2019-12-13T20:38:02Z

+spice-devel for awareness

Context: there is a lot of work there on video streaming for SPICE, mostly
done ATM through proprietary APIs.

> On 9 Dec 2019, at 15:19, Dmitry Sepp <dmitry.sepp@opensynergy.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to invite everyone to share ideas regarding required encoder features
> in this separate sub-tree.
>
> In general, encoder devices are more complex compared to decoders. So the
> question I'd like to rise is in what way we define the minimal subset of
> features to be implemented by the virtio-video.
>
> We may look at the following to define the set of features:
> 1. USB video, 2.3.6 Encoding Unit [1].
> 2. Android 10 Compatibility Definition [2].
>
> Would be nice to hear about any specific requirements from the Chromium team as
> well.
>
> [1] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB_Video_Class_1_5.zip
> [2] https://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cdd#5_2_video_encoding
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry.
>
> On Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2019 10:16:20 CET Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> 1. Focus on only decoder/encoder functionalities first.
>>>
>>> As Tomasz said earlier in this thread, it'd be too complicated to support
>>> camera usage at the same time. So, I'd suggest to make it just a generic
>>> mem-to-mem video processing device protocol for now.
>>> If we finally decide to support camera in this protocol, we can add it
>>> later.
>> Agree.
>>
>>> 2. Only one feature bit can be specified for one device.
>>>
>>> I'd like to have a decoder device and encoder device separately.
>>> It'd be natural to assume it because a decoder and an encoder are provided
>>> as different hardware.
>>
>> Hmm, modern GPUs support both encoding and decoding ...
>>
>> I don't think we should bake that restriction into the specification.
>> It probably makes sense to use one virtqueue per function though, that
>> will simplify dispatching in both host and guest.
>>
>>> 3. Separate buffer allocation functionalities from virtio-video protocol.
>>>
>>> To support various ways of guest/host buffer sharing, we might want to
>>> have a dedicated buffer sharing device as we're discussing in another
>>> thread. Until we reach consensus there, it'd be good not to have buffer
>>> allocation
>>> functionalities in virtio-video.
>>
>> I think virtio-video should be able to work as stand-alone device,
>> so we need some way to allocate buffers ...
>>
>> Buffer sharing with other devices can be added later.
>>
>>>> +The virtio video device is a virtual video streaming device that
>>>> supports the +following functions: encoder, decoder, capture, output.
>>>> +
>>>> +\subsection{Device ID}\label{sec:Device Types / Video Device / Device
>>>> ID}
>>>> +
>>>> +TBD.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how and when we can determine and reserve this ID?
>>
>> Grab the next free, update the spec accordingly, submit the one-line
>> patch.
>>
>>>> +\begin{lstlisting}
>>>> +enum virtio_video_pixel_format {
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_UNDEFINED = 0,
>>>> +
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_H264 = 0x0100,
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_NV12,
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_NV21,
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_I420,
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_I422,
>>>> + VIRTIO_VIDEO_PIX_FMT_XBGR,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if we can use FOURCC instead. So, we can avoid reinventing a
>>> mapping from formats to integers.
>>> Also, I suppose the word "pixel formats" means only raw (decoded) formats.
>>> But, it can be encoded format like H.264. So, I guess "image format" or
>>> "fourcc" is a better word choice.
>>
>> Use separate pixel_format (fourcc) and stream_format (H.264 etc.) enums?
>>
>>>> +\begin{lstlisting}
>>>> +struct virtio_video_function {
>>>> + struct virtio_video_desc desc;
>>>> + __le32 function_type; /* One of VIRTIO_VIDEO_FUNC_* types */
>>>> + __le32 function_id;
>>>> + struct virtio_video_params in_params;
>>>> + struct virtio_video_params out_params;
>>>> + __le32 num_caps;
>>>> + __u8 padding[4];
>>>> + /* Followed by struct virtio_video_capability video_caps[]; */
>>>> +};
>>>> +\end{lstlisting}
>>>
>>> If one device only has one functionality, virtio_video_function's fields
>>> will be no longer needed except in_params and out_params. So, we'd be
>>> able to remove virtio_video_function and have in_params and out_params in
>>> virtio_video_capability instead.
>>
>> Same goes for per-function virtqueues (used virtqueue implies function).
>>
>>>> +\begin{lstlisting}
>>>> +struct virtio_video_resource_detach_backing {
>>>> + struct virtio_video_ctrl_hdr hdr;
>>>> + __le32 resource_id;
>>>> + __u8 padding[4];
>>>> +};
>>>> +\end{lstlisting}
>>>> +
>>>> +\begin{description}
>>>> +\item[\field{resource_id}] internal id of the resource.
>>>> +\end{description}
>>>
>>> I suppose that it'd be better not to have the above series of T_RESOURCE
>>> controls at least until we reach a conclusion in the thread of
>>> buffer-sharing device. If we end up concluding this type of controls is
>>> the best way, we'll be able to revisit here.
>>
>> Well. For buffer management there are a bunch of options.
>>
>> (1) Simply stick the buffers (well, pointers to the buffer pages) into
>> the virtqueue. This is the standard virtio way.
>>
>> (2) Create resources, then put the resource ids into the virtqueue.
>> virtio-gpu uses that model. First, because virtio-gpu needs an id
>> to reference resources in the rendering command stream
>> (virtio-video doesn't need this). Also because (some kinds of)
>> resources are around for a long time and the guest-physical ->
>> host-virtual mapping needs to be done only once that way (which
>> I think would be the case for virtio-video too because v4l2
>> re-uses buffers in robin-round fashion). Drawback is this
>> assumes shared memory between host and guest (which is the case
>> in typical use cases but it is not mandated by the virtio spec).
>>
>> (3) Import external resources (from virtio-gpu for example).
>> Out of scope for now, will probably added as optional feature
>> later.
>>
>> I guess long-term we want support either (1)+(3) or (2)+(3).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Gerd
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>