[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Fwd: Shared Resources revisited



On 13-06-21 01:53 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
So I was just about ready to land a WEBGL_shared_resources patch in Chrome

But asm.js got me thinking that there will probably be a push for making shared resources work exactly the same as OpenGL so that porting will be easier.

That, however, only applies if real-world applications that one would want to port, are already using OpenGL share groups. Are they?

Here is what I am not in a rush to start implementing WEBGL_shared_resources:

I have never heard of applications actually using share groups, at least not in ways that fundamentally require them as opposed to more fine-grained sharing mechanisms. Most of the time, what applications want to share across context is only a small minority of their OpenGL objects, and specifically a minority of their *textures*. For that, there exists a variety of existing mechanisms to allow sharing textures, which is also what browsers have to rely on anyways to composite WebGL frames in a GPU-accelerated browser compositor.

The value of focusing specifically on sharing only specific textures on a per-object opt-in basis, as opposed to sharing everything (as OpenGL share groups do) is that there are subtle performance caveats associated with OpenGL object sharing. In particular, having two OpenGL contexts in the same share group simultaneously current on two different threads is known to be a severe performance issue, as it requires certain drivers to turn on inefficient locking mechanisms.

For that reason, I expect that WEBGL_shared_resources is on a head-on collision course with other WebGL features that we're likely to implement in the near future, like WebGL-on-Web-Workers.

If I have to choose one --- I care far, far more for WebGL-on-Web-Workers than I do for WEBGL_shared_resources. It also seems that the majority of WEBGL_shared_resources use cases can be addressed by other means (e.g. targeting a single WebGL context to render to multiple canvases, as has been discussed).

Even if there was a strong need for OpenGL-like sharing of objects, I expect it'd still be mostly for sharing *textures* in which case we could make a spec allowing only to share textures with semantics that map well onto efficient texture-sharing mechanisms. But again, we haven't seen a lot of evidence for even that.

Cheers,
Benoit



That got me thinking what would it take to make WebGL enforce the sharing rules in the OpenGL spec.

The spec says you must call glFinish (or use a sync object) in the context modifying a resource and then bind or attach that resource in the context you want to see the modification to be guaranteed to be able to see the change.

The problem is many drivers require far less. Some work with glFlush/glBind, Some work with just glFlush, no bind, others require the spec compliant glFInish/glBind. If we could figure out a way to enforce that you must use glFinish(or sync) and glBind in WebGL maybe it would be okay to expose that stuff as is rather than through an extension. For WebGL 1 we'd probably need a SYNC extension for sync objects otherwise so you have an alternative to the slow glFinish.

Thinking about how to implement enforcing the rules. 

  • Each context has a vector<WebGLSharedObject*> modified_objects.
  • Each WebGLSharedObject has a per context safe_to_use flag. 
  • Each WebGLSharedObject has a finished flag
  • Each WebGLSharedObject has a fence_inserted flag
  • Each WebGLSharedObject has a fence_id field
  • Each context has a newest_fence_id_waited_for field
  • There's a global fence_count
  • Anytime a resource is modified
    • if it's safe_to_use flag for this context is false
      • generate INVALID_OPERATION 
      • exit these steps
    • set its safe_to_use flag is false for all contexts but the context making the modification. 
    • set its finished flag is set to false. 
    • set its fence_inserted flag to false.
    • add it to this context's modified_objects vector.
  • Anytime a a glfinish happens
    • set the finished flag to true for every object in the context's modified_objects vector.
    • clear the modified_objects vector.
  • Anytime a FenceSync is called
    • increment the global sync_count
    • associate the sync_count with the sync object created by FenceSync
    • assign the sync_count to every object's sync_id field in the context's modified_objects vector
    • set the fence_inserted flag to true of every object in the context's modfied_objects vector 
    • clear the modified_objects vector.
  • Anytime a resource is used
    • if the object's safe_to_use flag for this context is false
      • generate INVALID_OPERATION or INVALID_FRAMEBUFFER_OPERATION
  • Anytime a resource is bound/attached
    • if the finished flag is true
      • mark the object's safe_to_use flag for this context as true.
    • if the fenced_inserted flag is true and this context's newest_fence_id_waited is >= the object's fence_id field
      • mark the object's safe_to_use flag for this context as true.
    • If the object's safe_to_use flag for this context is still false
      • generate INVALID_OPERATION or INVALID_FRAMEBUFFER_OPERATION
  • Anytime WaitSync or ClientWaitSync is called
    • set the context's newest_fence_id to the fence_count associated with the given Fence object.
This seems like it would work? The problems off the top of my head are

1) you can observe behavior in a worker since you can spin call BindXXX or attach until you get success as well as call GetSyncParameter

It seems like it used to be a rule that you shouldn't be able to observe the behavior of a worker but it doesn't seem like people care about that anymore?

2) You can assume your timing works? 

One of the things WEBGL_shared_resources was trying to prevent was a situation where you're running at 60fps (or 30fps) and that some resource you modified in one thread will be ready in another by the next frame so you assume it's okay to bind. I don't think this proposal has that problem though. If you called glFinish you can assume bind will work in the other context. If you called FenceSync in one context, bind in another context will not work unless you call WaitSync or ClientWaitSync

I suppose this proposal is not "exactly like OpenGL" but it's spec compliant OpenGL. Native apps that get errors when ported to this code were just getting lucky on the platforms they were running on.

Thoughts?