7 ms·

> Here’s a little secret: there are two graphics APIs called “Metal”. There’s the Metal you know, a limited API that Apple documents for App Store developers, a

by bla3 4y ago

> Here’s a little secret: there are two graphics APIs called “Metal”. There’s the Metal you know, a limited API that Apple documents for App Store developers, an API that lacks useful features supported by OpenGL and Vulkan. > And there’s the Metal that Apple uses themselves, an internal API adding back features that Apple doesn’t want you using. Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. I use macOS since it seems like the least bad option of you want a Unix but also don't want to spend a lot of time on system management, but this is a real turn-off.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. To be fair, Windows has a ludicrous amount of undocumented APIs for internal affairs as well, and you can get deep into the weeds very quickly, just ask the WINE Developers who have to reverse-engineer the havoc. There is no OS without Private APIs, but Windows is arguably the worst with more Private or Undocumented APIs than Apple. This actually bears parallels to Metal. Until DirectX 12, Windows had no official way to get low-level. Vulkan and OpenGL are only 3rd-party supported, not Microsoft-supported, Microsoft officially only supports DirectX. If you want Vulkan/OpenGL, that's on your GPU vendor. If you wanted low-level until 12, you may have found yourself pulling some undocumented shenanigans. Apple hasn't gotten to their DirectX 12 yet, but they'll get there eventually. As for why they are Private, there could be many reasons, not least of which that (in this case) Apple has a very complicated Display Controller design and is frequently changing those internal methods, which would break compatibility if third-party applications used them. Just ask Asahi about how the DCP changed considerably from 11.x to 13.x.
- chongli 4y ago
  Apple has a very complicated Display Controller design Can anyone in the know give more information here? Why would Apple want to do this? What could they be doing that's so complicated in the display controller?
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1549672494210113536 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1549672494210113536 and https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1415360411260493826?lang=en https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1415360411260493826?lang... and https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1526104383519350785 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1526104383519350785 As to why? Well, if it ain't broke don't fix it from iPhone, but it is still a bit of a mystery. In a nutshell from those threads: 1. Apple's DCP silicon layout is actually massive, explaining the 1 external display limit 2. Apple implements half the DCP firmware on the main CPU and the other half on the coprocessor with RPC calls, which is hilariously complicated. 3. Apple's DCP firmware is versioned, with a different version for every macOS release. This is also why Asahi Linux currently uses a "macOS 12.3" shim, so they can focus on the macOS 12.3 DCP firmware in the driver, which will probably not work with the macOS 12.4+ DCP firmware or the macOS 12.2- firmware. I can totally see why Apple doesn't want people using their low-level Metal implementation that deals with the mess yet.
    - chongli 4y ago
      Yeah it makes perfect sense that they don't want to expose any of that complexity to 3rd parties and risk constant breakage with new models. I'm just really curious about what sort of complex logic they have going on in that silicon.
    - phire 4y ago
      The complexity with the firmware split across the main CPU and a coprocessor seems to be a historical artefact. Seems the DCP driver was originally all on the main CPU, and when apple got these cheap coprocessor cores, they took a lazy approach of just inserting a simple RPC layer in the middle. The complexity for Asahi comes from the fact that it's a c++ API that can change very dynamically from version to version. And yes, these ARM coprocessor cores are cheap, apple have put at least 16 of them [1] on the M1, on top the 4 performance and 4 efficiency cores. They are an apple custom design that implement only the 64bit parts of the ARMv8 spec. I'm not entirely sure why the actual DCP is so big, but it's not because of the complex firmware. Potentially because the DCP includes enough dedicated RAM to store an entire framebuffer on-chip. If so, they will be doing this because it allows for lower power consumption. The main DRAM could be put in a power-saving mode and kept there for seconds or even minutes at a time without having to wake it up multiple times per frame, even when just showing a static image. [1] https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1557242428876537856 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1557242428876537856
fezfight 4y ago
If you buy a hackintosh, you have to sometimes mess around to get stuff to work. Same goes for Linux on random hardware. If you check first and buy a machine that supports the OS you're using, you don't have to do anything special. It'll work as you expect. It's freeing not to be beholden to the likes of someone like Tim Cook who, it would seem, spends the majority of his waking hours figuring out how to hide anticonsumer decisions under rugs.
Pulcinella 4y ago
Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. It would be one thing if the private APIs were limited to system frameworks and features while Apple’s own apps weren’t allowed to use them, but they do. E.g. The Swift Playgrounds app for iPad is allowed to share and compile code, run separate processes, etc. which isn’t normally allowed in the AppStore. They also use blur and other graphical effects (outside of the background blur material and the SwiftUI blur modifier) that are unavailable outside of private APIs. It stinks because of the perceived hypocrisy and the inability to compete on a level playing field or leave the AppStore (and I say this as someone who normally doesn’t mind the walled garden!)
- adrian_b 4y ago
  Unfortunately such a behavior is not at all new. The best known example of these methods is how Microsoft has exploited the replacement of MS-DOS with Windows 3.0 and especially with Windows 95. During the MS-DOS years, the only Microsoft software products that were successful were their software development tools, i.e. compilers and interpreters, and even those had strong competition, mainly from Borland. Those MS products addressed only a small market and they could not provide large revenues. The most successful software products for MS-DOS were from many other companies. That changed abruptly with the transition to various Windows versions, when the Microsoft developers started to have a huge advantage over those from any other company, both by being able to use undocumented internal APIs provided by the MS operating systems and also by knowing in advance the future documented APIs, before they were revealed to competitors. Thus in a few years MS Office has transitioned from an irrelevant product, much inferior to the competition, to the dominant suite of office programs, which has eliminated all competitors and which has become the main source of revenue for MS.
Jasper_ 4y ago
As a graphics engineer, good riddens to the old clip space, 0...1 really is the correct option. We also don't know what else "OpenGL mode" enables, and the details of what it does probably changes between GPU revisions -- the emulation stack probably has the details, and changes its own behavior of what's in hardware and what's emulated in the OpenGL stack depending on the GPU revision. Also, to Alyssa, if she's reading this: you're just going to have to implement support shader variants. Build your infrastructure for supporting them now. It's going to be far more helpful than just for clip control. But yes, the Vulkan extension was just poorly specified, allowing you to change clip spaces between draws in the same render pass is, again, ludicrous, and the extension should just be renamed VK_EXT_i_hate_tilers (like so many others of their kind). Every app is going to set it at app init and forget it; the implementation using the render pass bit and flushing on change will cover the 100% case, and won't be slow at all.
- bpye 4y ago
  > you're just going to have to implement support shader variants I admittedly have zero experience with Mesa, but it seems like shader variants is something that should be common infrastructure? Though of course the reason that a variant is needed would be architecture specific.
- garaetjjte 4y ago
  >good riddens to the old clip space, 0...1 really is the correct option More like 1...0, which nicely improves depth precision. Annoyingly due to symmetric -1...1 range reverse-Z cannot be used on OpenGL out of the box, but it can be fixed with ARB_clip_control. https://developer.nvidia.com/content/depth-precision-visualized https://developer.nvidia.com/content/depth-precision-visuali...
bri3d 4y ago
> Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. Why should they get flak for having internal APIs? The fact that the internal API is a superset of the external API is smart engineering. Think about it this way: Apple could just as well have made the "Metal that Apple uses themselves" some arcane "foocode" IR language or something, as I'm sure many shader compilers and OpenGL runtime implementations do, and nobody would be nearly as mad about it. The fact that they use internal APIs for external apps in their weird iOS walled garden is obnoxious, but having private, undocumented APIs in a closed-source driver is not exactly an Apple anomaly.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  > Why should they get flak for having internal APIs? The fact that the internal API is a superset of the external API is smart engineering. It's not about having good segmentation of user-facing and kernel-side libraries, no one faults them for that. It's about Apple building user-facing apps that use the whole API, and then demanding that other developers not use the features required to implement those apps because we're not trusted to maintain the look-and-feel, responsiveness, or battery life expectations of apps on the platform.
  - dcx 4y ago
    But isn't it kind of fair to say that when you look at the case studies presented by (a) the Android app store in the past decade and (b) Windows malware in the decade before that, this trust has in fact not been earned? I hate a walled garden as much as the next developer, and the median HN reader is probably more than trustworthy. But past performance does predict future performance.
chaxor 4y ago
This is why the Asahi Linux project is so exciting!! You get the great performance at low-power (M* ARM processors) while still getting the more performant and useful Linux experience. I am really thankful to the Asahi Linux team, and specifically in this instance for the GPU, [Alyssa Rosenweig](https://github.com/alyssarosenzweig https://github.com/alyssarosenzweig), [Asahi Lina](https://github.com/asahilina https://github.com/asahilina), and [Doug all Johnson](https://github.com/dougallj https://github.com/dougallj).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by bla3 4y ago

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. To be fair, Windows has a ludicrous amount of undocumented APIs for internal affairs as well, and you can get deep into the weeds very quickly, just ask the WINE Developers who have to reverse-engineer the havoc. There is no OS without Private APIs, but Windows is arguably the worst with more Private or Undocumented APIs than Apple. This actually bears parallels to Metal. Until DirectX 12, Windows had no official way to get low-level. Vulkan and OpenGL are only 3rd-party supported, not Microsoft-supported, Microsoft officially only supports DirectX. If you want Vulkan/OpenGL, that's on your GPU vendor. If you wanted low-level until 12, you may have found yourself pulling some undocumented shenanigans. Apple hasn't gotten to their DirectX 12 yet, but they'll get there eventually. As for why they are Private, there could be many reasons, not least of which that (in this case) Apple has a very complicated Display Controller design and is frequently changing those internal methods, which would break compatibility if third-party applications used them. Just ask Asahi about how the DCP changed considerably from 11.x to 13.x.

chongli 4y ago
Apple has a very complicated Display Controller design Can anyone in the know give more information here? Why would Apple want to do this? What could they be doing that's so complicated in the display controller?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1549672494210113536 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1549672494210113536 and https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1415360411260493826?lang=en https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1415360411260493826?lang... and https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1526104383519350785 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1526104383519350785 As to why? Well, if it ain't broke don't fix it from iPhone, but it is still a bit of a mystery. In a nutshell from those threads: 1. Apple's DCP silicon layout is actually massive, explaining the 1 external display limit 2. Apple implements half the DCP firmware on the main CPU and the other half on the coprocessor with RPC calls, which is hilariously complicated. 3. Apple's DCP firmware is versioned, with a different version for every macOS release. This is also why Asahi Linux currently uses a "macOS 12.3" shim, so they can focus on the macOS 12.3 DCP firmware in the driver, which will probably not work with the macOS 12.4+ DCP firmware or the macOS 12.2- firmware. I can totally see why Apple doesn't want people using their low-level Metal implementation that deals with the mess yet.
  - chongli 4y ago
    Yeah it makes perfect sense that they don't want to expose any of that complexity to 3rd parties and risk constant breakage with new models. I'm just really curious about what sort of complex logic they have going on in that silicon.
  - phire 4y ago
    The complexity with the firmware split across the main CPU and a coprocessor seems to be a historical artefact. Seems the DCP driver was originally all on the main CPU, and when apple got these cheap coprocessor cores, they took a lazy approach of just inserting a simple RPC layer in the middle. The complexity for Asahi comes from the fact that it's a c++ API that can change very dynamically from version to version. And yes, these ARM coprocessor cores are cheap, apple have put at least 16 of them [1] on the M1, on top the 4 performance and 4 efficiency cores. They are an apple custom design that implement only the 64bit parts of the ARMv8 spec. I'm not entirely sure why the actual DCP is so big, but it's not because of the complex firmware. Potentially because the DCP includes enough dedicated RAM to store an entire framebuffer on-chip. If so, they will be doing this because it allows for lower power consumption. The main DRAM could be put in a power-saving mode and kept there for seconds or even minutes at a time without having to wake it up multiple times per frame, even when just showing a static image. [1] https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1557242428876537856 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1557242428876537856

fezfight 4y ago

If you buy a hackintosh, you have to sometimes mess around to get stuff to work. Same goes for Linux on random hardware. If you check first and buy a machine that supports the OS you're using, you don't have to do anything special. It'll work as you expect. It's freeing not to be beholden to the likes of someone like Tim Cook who, it would seem, spends the majority of his waking hours figuring out how to hide anticonsumer decisions under rugs.

Pulcinella 4y ago

Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. It would be one thing if the private APIs were limited to system frameworks and features while Apple’s own apps weren’t allowed to use them, but they do. E.g. The Swift Playgrounds app for iPad is allowed to share and compile code, run separate processes, etc. which isn’t normally allowed in the AppStore. They also use blur and other graphical effects (outside of the background blur material and the SwiftUI blur modifier) that are unavailable outside of private APIs. It stinks because of the perceived hypocrisy and the inability to compete on a level playing field or leave the AppStore (and I say this as someone who normally doesn’t mind the walled garden!)

adrian_b 4y ago
Unfortunately such a behavior is not at all new. The best known example of these methods is how Microsoft has exploited the replacement of MS-DOS with Windows 3.0 and especially with Windows 95. During the MS-DOS years, the only Microsoft software products that were successful were their software development tools, i.e. compilers and interpreters, and even those had strong competition, mainly from Borland. Those MS products addressed only a small market and they could not provide large revenues. The most successful software products for MS-DOS were from many other companies. That changed abruptly with the transition to various Windows versions, when the Microsoft developers started to have a huge advantage over those from any other company, both by being able to use undocumented internal APIs provided by the MS operating systems and also by knowing in advance the future documented APIs, before they were revealed to competitors. Thus in a few years MS Office has transitioned from an irrelevant product, much inferior to the competition, to the dominant suite of office programs, which has eliminated all competitors and which has become the main source of revenue for MS.

Jasper_ 4y ago

As a graphics engineer, good riddens to the old clip space, 0...1 really is the correct option. We also don't know what else "OpenGL mode" enables, and the details of what it does probably changes between GPU revisions -- the emulation stack probably has the details, and changes its own behavior of what's in hardware and what's emulated in the OpenGL stack depending on the GPU revision. Also, to Alyssa, if she's reading this: you're just going to have to implement support shader variants. Build your infrastructure for supporting them now. It's going to be far more helpful than just for clip control. But yes, the Vulkan extension was just poorly specified, allowing you to change clip spaces between draws in the same render pass is, again, ludicrous, and the extension should just be renamed VK_EXT_i_hate_tilers (like so many others of their kind). Every app is going to set it at app init and forget it; the implementation using the render pass bit and flushing on change will cover the 100% case, and won't be slow at all.

bpye 4y ago
> you're just going to have to implement support shader variants I admittedly have zero experience with Mesa, but it seems like shader variants is something that should be common infrastructure? Though of course the reason that a variant is needed would be architecture specific.
garaetjjte 4y ago
>good riddens to the old clip space, 0...1 really is the correct option More like 1...0, which nicely improves depth precision. Annoyingly due to symmetric -1...1 range reverse-Z cannot be used on OpenGL out of the box, but it can be fixed with ARB_clip_control. https://developer.nvidia.com/content/depth-precision-visualized https://developer.nvidia.com/content/depth-precision-visuali...

bri3d 4y ago

> Apple does stuff like this so much and gets so little flak for it. Why should they get flak for having internal APIs? The fact that the internal API is a superset of the external API is smart engineering. Think about it this way: Apple could just as well have made the "Metal that Apple uses themselves" some arcane "foocode" IR language or something, as I'm sure many shader compilers and OpenGL runtime implementations do, and nobody would be nearly as mad about it. The fact that they use internal APIs for external apps in their weird iOS walled garden is obnoxious, but having private, undocumented APIs in a closed-source driver is not exactly an Apple anomaly.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
> Why should they get flak for having internal APIs? The fact that the internal API is a superset of the external API is smart engineering. It's not about having good segmentation of user-facing and kernel-side libraries, no one faults them for that. It's about Apple building user-facing apps that use the whole API, and then demanding that other developers not use the features required to implement those apps because we're not trusted to maintain the look-and-feel, responsiveness, or battery life expectations of apps on the platform.
- dcx 4y ago
  But isn't it kind of fair to say that when you look at the case studies presented by (a) the Android app store in the past decade and (b) Windows malware in the decade before that, this trust has in fact not been earned? I hate a walled garden as much as the next developer, and the median HN reader is probably more than trustworthy. But past performance does predict future performance.

chaxor 4y ago

This is why the Asahi Linux project is so exciting!! You get the great performance at low-power (M* ARM processors) while still getting the more performant and useful Linux experience. I am really thankful to the Asahi Linux team, and specifically in this instance for the GPU, [Alyssa Rosenweig](https://github.com/alyssarosenzweig https://github.com/alyssarosenzweig), [Asahi Lina](https://github.com/asahilina https://github.com/asahilina), and [Doug all Johnson](https://github.com/dougallj https://github.com/dougallj).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]