3 ms·
It relied on implicit sync as far as I know by accident. But since it worked for the popular configuration, no one dug deeper that support for accelerated drawi
by p_l 2y ago
It relied on implicit sync as far as I know by accident. But since it worked for the popular configuration, no one dug deeper that support for accelerated drawing without multi-frame lag of manually calling commit on surfaces had gaps in design.
- seba_dos1 2y agoImplicit sync worked by design. There were years of discussions whether it's a good idea to rely on it and how exactly explicit sync would actually look like, with protocols such as zwp_linux_explicit_synchronization_v1 (eventually deprecated) being worked on almost a decade ago already, but it's definitely not an "accident". Explicit sync offers several advantages, but implicit sync is how DRM was designed and what Wayland consciously relied on, and what Nvidia disregarded because it would be rather challenging to implement it in their driver. The ecosystem slowly moves towards explicit sync now, but Nvidia was supposed to provide a driver already before that was happening and they didn't comply with platform's requirements at date, resulting in user-facing issues. With this one, they just got lucky that the consensus happens to move towards what they had already asserted.