Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Define KMS atomic state set

[Simon Ser]

On Friday, December 1st, 2023 at 10:57, Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > +An atomic commit can be flagged with DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY, which means the  
> > 
> > It would be nice to link DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY to the actual docs here.
> > This can be done with markup such as:
> > 
> >     :c:macro:`DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY`
> > 
> > Same applies to other #defines.
> > 
> > > +complete state change is validated but not applied.  Userspace should use this  
> > 
> > I'd s/should/can/ here, because there are valid cases where user-space doesn't
> > really need to test before applying. Applying a state first validates it in the
> > kernel anwyays.
> 
> Those cases a very much an exception. If you want to explain in what
> cases testing is not necessary, that's fine to add, but without it I do
> want to always recommend testing first. There is no harm in testing too
> much, but there is harm in not testing which implies that there is
> likely no fallback either. Without fallbacks, the kernel developers
> have less room to change things, and the userspace itself is probably
> too fragile to be generally useful.
> 
> Or, if you think this concern is moot, then why would userspace ever
> use testing?
> 
> However, I have understood from past kernel discussions that userspace
> really does need to test and fall back on test failure in almost all
> cases. Otherwise userspace becomes too driver/hardware dependent.
> 
> In general, I think recommending best practices with "should" is a good
> idea.

I was mostly thinking about very simple KMS clients that only use the most
basic configuration (full-screen buffer with no scaling/cropping). That's
actually a quite common case.

But I see what you mean here, I don't mind keeping the current wording.

> > > +flag to validate any state change before asking to apply it. If validation fails
> > > +for any reason, userspace should attempt to fall back to another, perhaps
> > > +simpler, final state.  This allows userspace to probe for various configurations
> > > +without causing visible glitches on screen and without the need to undo a
> > > +probing change.
> > > +
> > > +The changes recorded in an atomic commit apply on top the current KMS state in
> > > +the kernel. Hence, the complete new KMS state is the complete old KMS state with
> > > +the committed property settings done on top. The kernel will try to avoid
> > > +no-operation changes, so it is safe for userspace to send redundant property
> > > +settings.  However, not every situation allows for no-op changes, due to the
> > > +need to acquire locks for some attributes. Userspace needs to be aware that some
> > > +redundant information might result in oversynchronization issues.  No-operation
> > > +changes do not count towards actually needed changes, e.g.  setting MODE_ID to a
> > > +different blob with identical contents as the current KMS state shall not be a
> > > +modeset on its own. As a special exception for VRR needs, explicitly setting
> > > +FB_ID to its current value is not a no-op.  
> > 
> > I'm not sure talking about FB_ID is the right thing to do here. There is
> > nothing special about FB_ID in particular. For instance, setting CRTC_ID to the
> > same value as before has the same effect. Talking specifically about FB_ID here
> > can be surprising for user-space: reading these docs, I'd assume setting
> > CRTC_ID to the same value as before is a no-op, but in reality it's not.
> 
> Whoa, I never knew that! That's a big surprise!

Aha! Seems like KMS always has a trick up its sleeve to surprise user-space
devs :)

> People have always been talking only about FB_ID so far.
> 
> > Instead, I'd suggest explaining how referencing a plane/CRTC/connector in an
> > atomic commit adds it to the new state, even if there are no effective property
> > value changes.
> 
> So, if a CRTC object is pulled into drm_atomic_state(?) at all, on VRR
> it will trigger a new scanout cycle always, avoiding the front porch
> timeout?
> 
> Yikes.

Yeah, I believe so. Any property (regardless of whether the value actually
changed or not) included in the atomic commit may directly (applied on a CRTC
object) or indirectly (applied on a plane/connector linked to a CRTC) pull in
a CRTC and have side-effects. (Also, as noted on IRC, a driver might pull in a
CRTC on its own, e.g. when reconfiguring a DP-MST tree.)

> > > +A "modeset" is a change in KMS state that might enable, disable, or temporarily
> > > +disrupt the emitted video signal, possibly causing visible glitches on screen. A
> > > +modeset may also take considerably more time to complete than other kinds of
> > > +changes, and the video sink might also need time to adapt to the new signal
> > > +properties. Therefore a modeset must be explicitly allowed with the flag
> > > +DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_ALLOW_MODESET.  This in combination with
> > > +DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY allows userspace to determine if a state change is
> > > +likely to cause visible disruption on screen and avoid such changes when end
> > > +users do not expect them.
> > > +
> > > +An atomic commit with the flag DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC is allowed to
> > > +effectively change only the FB_ID property on any planes. No-operation changes
> > > +are ignored as always. Changing any other property will cause the commit to be
> > > +rejected. Each driver may relax this restriction if they have guarantees that
> > > +such property change doesn't cause modesets. Userspace can use TEST_ONLY commits
> > > +to query the driver about this.  
> > 
> > This doesn't 100% match reality at the moment, because core DRM now rejects any
> > async commit which changes FB_ID on a non-primary plane. And there is no way
> > for drivers to relax this currently.
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is a good place to state such a rule. In the end, it's the
> > same as always: the kernel will reject commits it can't perform.
> > DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC does not need to be a special case here. Even when
> > changing only FB_ID, the kernel might reject the commit (e.g. i915 does in some
> > cases).
> 
> I think the paragraph is good to drop here, if it's documented in a
> more appropriate place.

Yeah, maybe we should expand the DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC docs a bit.