Explicit GPU Synchronization Merged For XWayland

[bple2137]

I'm a Wayland fan but from what I understand, multi-monitor seems to be the most problematic feature regardless of DE. Not sure if that's still true since I haven't used Linux and multiple extended displays in years (I've cloned displays in the past year but that's not really the same thing).

Maybe a bit anecdotal, but I’m docking Plasma 5.27 (Wayland) laptop to have 2 additional 1440p screens at office, with mixed refresh rates (60+75+75) and it’s flawless. I dock the same laptop to my dock at home with just single 60Hz screen plus my personal Plasma 6 laptop and both run great. Plasma 6 can also handle fractional scaling and mixed DPI mostly fine (with some minor glitches when using weird scales like 115%). It remembers and properly restores all those different layouts (even for TVs in certain conference rooms). My experience on Xorg wasn’t ever even close to that. I also meesed with Hyprland for a bit and didn’t face any issues with multi-screen setups.

[Weasel]

Xorg fans, what else is wrong with a Wayland?

https://github.com/probonopd/wayland...pat-protocols/

https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/pull/10179

https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/98928

https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/pull/9345

Do you need more? Ask Michael to disable the spam filter.

[Monsterovich]

Nothing wrong with different implementations following stardards

There are essentially no standards at Wayland because DEs make their own unique protocols.

whole world works like this

The whole world worked like Xorg until the incompetent morons came up with Wayland.

We do not need «Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer».

Then throw Wayland in the trash, because just its developers refuse to make universal protocols and graphical server by default, so you have to make your own, increasing fragmentation on desktop.

To dead unmaintainable full of backdoors and crutches x11?

Shut up, Wayland shill.

[ehansin]

Not only is it worth the risk, but it'll bring immediate benefits that help current use cases. This quote from Eric:

"...With implicit sync (or poorly implemented explicit sync, for that matter), if the server is compositing from multiple clients, its framerate will be limited by the slowest-rendering one. With explicit sync, it's free to composite from whichever clients are ready while it waits for any slower ones..."

Still wrapping my head around implicit vs. explicit sync, but makes me thinks of the async stuff or event loops. Taking what I have read already here recently and then using the async/events loop analogy, I'm thinking along of lines of "implicit sync just dumps streams to the compositor for the compositor to try and sort out with all the other application/surface streams and see if it can make the best of it", whereas "explicit sync dumps to the compositor when it is ready, each application/surface can do this at their own pace and the compositor can composite frames when it wants to - if a given application/surface it not ready at any one given frame, it can just do its thing and be composited in a future frame."

That is my current thinking at least.

[oiaohm]

There are essentially no standards at Wayland because DEs make their own unique protocols.

This is true with X11 as well by the way. X11 Windows managers added their own unique things to the X11 protocol. This leads to items like firefox and wine have a lot of windows manager work around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated-X

Its really simple to forget display servers like above.

The whole world worked like Xorg until the incompetent morons came up with Wayland.

Again bold face lie. http://www.microwindows.org/

There are different X11 servers around before and after Wayland appears that are not Xorg based with different levels of X11 protocol compatibility and different vendor unique extensions to the X11 protocol.

Whole world worked with Xorg is absolute not true. Xorg based was like 90% of the market share on Linux but there is still 10% other X11 servers out there found embedded in thin clients and the like.

Monsterovich if you don't want to be a Troll yourself you need to keep your arguments factual.

Then throw Wayland in the trash, because just its developers refuse to make universal protocols and graphical server by default, so you have to make your own, increasing fragmentation on desktop.

X11 historically had the same problem. Wayland developers are making univeral protocols. Do provide a default wayland server being weston. The problem here is the old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

Just think how far weston would be if all the different vendors had agreed to work on it instead of their own but if they don't want to agree todo that Wayland developers cannot force that.

Yes there were different Unixs where the X11 server was customized directly for the Unix workstation Windows manager makes it really fun when you want to demo these legacy systems. Fragmentation is not a new thing in the Linux/Unix graphics stack. We are back to 1990s early 2000 levels for fragmentation in display servers on Linux.

[intelfx]

What it describes can be done with implicit sync, per my blog post: https://blogs.gnome.org/shell-dev/20...nsive-clients/. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/..._requests/1120 is an Xwayland implementation of this by yours truly. It was shot down by Nvidia engineers, citing performance concerns. Well, the explicit sync MR this article is about has the same performance characteristics. Apparently those can be acceptable or not depending on which synchronization colour they're painted in.

Wait, I never realized you were Michel Dänzer of Mutter fame :-) Thanks for your work on GNOME!

[Monsterovich]

This leads to items like firefox and wine have a lot of windows manager work around.

That's some nonsense, I've never met any workarounds, ever.

There are different X11 servers around before and after Wayland appears

Those servers are in no way related to any DE. I don't even have a point in discussing them, because most people use Xorg anyway.

Monsterovich if you don't want to be a Troll yourself you need to keep your arguments factual.

You're sucking some nonsense out of the air that nobody cares about.

X11 historically had the same problem.

It was never done on purpose and yet everyone came to the single implementation anyway. It was also a long time ago and nobody gives a crap.

Wayland developers are making univeral protocols.

Yeah... like this.

Без имени.jpg

Then why such a huge fragmentation? Can you figure it out for yourself, or will you continue to talk nonsense?

Oh, and univeral protocols are not enough, they need unified implementation.

Do provide a default wayland server being weston.

Jesus f*cking Christ, why are you so stupid? Weston has his own protocols. KDE has its own, GNOME has its own, wlroots has its own, and so on.

In Xorg, you can run a panel or window manager from another DE and it will work, in Wayland this is not possible. So there is no default server, just like there is no universal server.

We are back to 1990s early 2000 levels for fragmentation in display servers on Linux.

Now you've admitted yourself that Wayland is inferior. Fragmentation is much worse in Wayland because the desktop components are part of a unique DE graphical server.

[galgo]

Will this make gnome completely smooth without needing triple buffering?

[Daktyl198]

I was not talking about the frame synchronization benefits of explicit sync in general but about the complexity of x11. The code is an ancient mess and just slight changes can break the DE experience. That's the reason why the wayland aka x11 devs weigh up the pros and cons and usually choose to not alter it. X11 is a mining field and nobody wants a broken desktop environment.
By the way explicit sync is in the making and planning by the mesa devs way longer before this merge request. I think the time and effort would have been better spent focusing on wayland and not on x11.

This is for XWayland. A piece of software that, even as much as I like Wayland, admit is necessary and will be around for a few years yet. It makes no sense to not upgrade it to use the same sync standard as Wayland.

Monsterovich didn't know Avis had yet another account on the forums.

[smitty3268]

Do you understand that the usual mantra of "X sucks and is an unmaintable mess" is quite out of place here?
The fix is for Wayland, not for X11.

No, this patch set is for X, not wayland. It's probably the last big new feature X will ever get.

Not to say I agree with M.Bahr. We need proper backwards compatibility support for X applications one way or another, and this was the method that got agreed on. And the patches have been around long enough that no one can claim they're just getting pushed in without enough thought.