From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5655DC43219 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA3D2063F for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727699AbfD2Ist (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 04:48:49 -0400 Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.201]:38109 "EHLO relay8-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727576AbfD2Iss (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 04:48:48 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 90.88.147.33 Received: from aptenodytes (aaubervilliers-681-1-27-33.w90-88.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.88.147.33]) (Authenticated sender: paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com) by relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5916A1BF220; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <16a3a61fe354dc545e99aef36aa58c7d4943de26.camel@bootlin.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] media: docs-rst: Document m2m stateless video decoder interface From: Paul Kocialkowski To: Hans Verkuil , Nicolas Dufresne , Alexandre Courbot Cc: Tomasz Figa , Maxime Ripard , Dafna Hirschfeld , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Media Mailing List , LKML Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:48:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <0a39c613-440d-c7a9-a078-b4688874f9e6@xs4all.nl> References: <20190306080019.159676-1-acourbot@chromium.org> <371df0e4ec9e38d83d11171cbd98f19954cbf787.camel@ndufresne.ca> <439b7f57aa3ba2b2ed5b043f961ef87cb83912af.camel@ndufresne.ca> <59e23c5ca5bfbadf9441ea06da2e9b9b5898c6d7.camel@bootlin.com> <0b495143bb260cf9f8927ee541e7f001842ac5c3.camel@ndufresne.ca> <793af82c-6b37-6f69-648e-2cd2a2e87645@xs4all.nl> <0a39c613-440d-c7a9-a078-b4688874f9e6@xs4all.nl> Organization: Bootlin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 10:41 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 4/27/19 2:06 PM, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > > Le vendredi 26 avril 2019 à 16:18 +0200, Hans Verkuil a écrit : > > > On 4/16/19 9:22 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this great discussion. Let me try to summarize the status > > > > of this thread + the IRC discussion and add my own thoughts: > > > > > > > > Proper support for multiple decoding units (e.g. H.264 slices) per > > > > frame should not be an afterthought ; compliance to encoded formats > > > > depend on it, and the benefit of lower latency is a significant > > > > consideration for vendors. > > > > > > > > m2m, which we use for all stateless codecs, has a strong assumption > > > > that one OUTPUT buffer consumed results in one CAPTURE buffer being > > > > produced. This assumption can however be overruled: at least the venus > > > > driver does it to implement the stateful specification. > > > > > > > > So we need a way to specify frame boundaries when submitting encoded > > > > content to the driver. One request should contain a single OUTPUT > > > > buffer, containing a single decoding unit, but we need a way to > > > > specify whether the driver should directly produce a CAPTURE buffer > > > > from this request, or keep using the same CAPTURE buffer with > > > > subsequent requests. > > > > > > > > I can think of 2 ways this can be expressed: > > > > 1) We keep the current m2m behavior as the default (a CAPTURE buffer > > > > is produced), and add a flag to ask the driver to change that behavior > > > > and hold on the CAPTURE buffer and reuse it with the next request(s) ; > > > > 2) We specify that no CAPTURE buffer is produced by default, unless a > > > > flag asking so is specified. > > > > > > > > The flag could be specified in one of two ways: > > > > a) As a new v4l2_buffer.flag for the OUTPUT buffer ; > > > > b) As a dedicated control, either format-specific or more common to all codecs. > > > > > > > > I tend to favor 2) and b) for this, for the reason that with H.264 at > > > > least, user-space does not know whether a slice is the last slice of a > > > > frame until it starts parsing the next one, and we don't know when we > > > > will receive it. If we use a control to ask that a CAPTURE buffer be > > > > produced, we can always submit another request with only that control > > > > set once it is clear that the frame is complete (and not delay > > > > decoding meanwhile). In practice I am not that familiar with > > > > latency-sensitive streaming ; maybe a smart streamer would just append > > > > an AUD NAL unit at the end of every frame and we can thus submit the > > > > flag it with the last slice without further delay? > > > > > > > > An extra constraint to enforce would be that each decoding unit > > > > belonging to the same frame must be submitted with the same timestamp, > > > > otherwise the request submission would fail. We really need a > > > > framework to enforce all this at a higher level than individual > > > > drivers, once we reach an agreement I will start working on this. > > > > > > > > Formats that do not support multiple decoding units per frame would > > > > reject any request that does not carry the end-of-frame information. > > > > > > > > Anything missing / any further comment? > > > > > > > > > > After reading through this thread and a further irc discussion I now > > > understand the problem. I think there are several ways this can be > > > solved, but I think this is the easiest: > > > > > > Introduce a new V4L2_BUF_FLAG_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUFFER flag. > > > > > > If set in the OUTPUT buffer, then don't mark the CAPTURE buffer as > > > done after processing the OUTPUT buffer. > > > > > > If an OUTPUT buffer was queued with a different timestamp than was > > > used for the currently held CAPTURE buffer, then mark that CAPTURE > > > buffer as done before starting processing this OUTPUT buffer. > > > > Just a curiosity, can you extend on how this would be handled. If there > > is a number of capture buffer, these should have "no-timestamp". So I > > suspect we need the condition to differentiate no-timestamp from > > previous timestamp. What I'm unclear is to what does it mean "no- > > timestamp". We already stated the timestamp 0 cannot be reserved as > > being an unset timestamp. > > For OUTPUT buffers there is no such thing as 'no timestamp'. They always > have a timestamp (which may be 0). The currently active CAPTURE buffer > also always has a timestamp as that was copied from the first OUTPUT buffer > for that CAPTURE buffer. > > > > In other words, for slicing you can just always set this flag and > > > group the slices by the OUTPUT timestamp. If you know that you > > > reached the last slice of a frame, then you can optionally clear the > > > flag to ensure the CAPTURE buffer is marked done without having to wait > > > for the first slice of the next frame to arrive. > > > > > > Potential disadvantage of this approach is that this relies on the > > > OUTPUT timestamp to be the same for all slices of the same frame. > > > > > > Which sounds reasonable to me. > > > > > > In addition add a V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUFFER > > > capability to signal support for this flag. > > > > > > I think this can be fairly easily implemented in v4l2-mem2mem.c. > > > > > > In addition, this approach is not specific to codecs, it can be > > > used elsewhere as well (composing multiple output buffers into one > > > capture buffer is one use-case that comes to mind). > > > > > > Comments? Other ideas? > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. I'll read through Paul's comment now and > > comment if needed. > > Paul's OK with it as well. The only thing I am not 100% happy with is > the name of the flag. It's a very low-level name: i.e. it does what it > says, but it doesn't say for what purpose. > > Does anyone have any better suggestions? Good naming is always so hard to find... I don't have anything better to suggest off the top of my head, but will definitely keep thinking about it. > Also, who will implement this in v4l2-mem2mem? Paul, where you planning to do that? Well, I no longer have time chunks allocated to the VPU topic at work, so that means I'll have to do it on spare time and it may take me a while to get there. So if either one of you would like to pick it up to get it over with faster, feel free to do that! Cheers, Paul -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com