4 ms·

What would you rather they use to communicate with the server? Message passing via shared memory? UNIX sockets are perfectly fine for IPC with small amounts of

• p-o 4mo ago
  Wayland uses UNIX socket for message passing, but then offload most of the work to shared memory when the real work begins (GPU rendering). I just wanted to add some nuances that it's not as black and white as this comment made it seem.
  • mort96 4mo ago
    Yeah, that’s correct; I implied it by only talking about sending small messages but it’s worth stating explicitly.
• Findecanor 4mo ago
  How about making the standard client library's API the interface, and have it hide whatever the system is actually using? A long time ago when I looked at designing a X11 replacement, that was my approach. AFAIK, only special X utilities used anything but Xlib anyway. And later I think this is what early revisions of Canonical's Mir did.
  • mort96 4mo ago
    So .. still using sockets, but not documenting how the messages on the socket look? Why?
    • to11mtm 4mo ago
      If I had to guess, because then at least -hypothetically- easier to optimize for the 'local' case (depending on implementation, at least from my understanding of the POSIX/*nix paradigm, bending and breaking a bunch of rules possibly) by dropping in a different implementation.
      • mort96 4mo ago
        Optimise how? There already is only the local case in Wayland, pixel data is shared using shared memory which only works locally. Only small communication messages are sent via the socket. And the Wayland protocol also uses native endianness because, again, it only cares about the local case. It even sends file descriptors over the socket. So what would you do differently in an alternative client library?
        • to11mtm 4mo ago
          > So what would you do differently in an alternative client library? I should have better disclaimed my comment.... to be clear I don't know much about the graphics subject, I probably should have prefaced it with, "I don't know anything about Wayland but as someone totally naieve on the subject but assuming someone else's assumption". At least to me, even if it breaks the X11 model (Which is a shame, that was fun to play with back in the day) if they're doing it the way they are I'm guessing Chesterton's fence will come into play at one point or another.
    • mjmas 4mo ago
      It also allows implementing a different display interface. For example Haiku OS has a compatibility layer: https://discuss.haiku-os.org/t/xlibe-an-xlib-x11-compatibility-layer-for-haiku/11692 https://discuss.haiku-os.org/t/xlibe-an-xlib-x11-compatibili...
  • dmytrish 4mo ago
    That's what wayland-client does.
• nananana9 4mo ago
  Yes, command buffers over shared memory are the correct way to do this. 1. You don't need to convert your discrete messages into a stream with size metadata, only for them to immediately be converted to a message on the other side. 2. You don't need to jump into the kernel to copy over 20 bytes, only for the other side to jump into the kernel to copy it back. 3. You don't need to deal with the "oh but what if my read returns half a message because this is a stream" 4. You don't need to pretend you're doing network programming. Regardless, it's not that big of a deal - this is like my 73th biggest gripe with Wayland, I only mentioned it since GP was talking about network transparency. It's pretty representative of the project though - "We're doing things the way we've always done them, but slightly different. Now rewrite all your software to work with our thing. No, you cannot do global keyboard shortcuts or set window position. You don't like it? We're doing this for free, you cannot critique it."
  • mort96 4mo ago
    You don’t have to hit the kernel for 20 bytes. Buffer up all your commands and send them to the kernel with a single write(). The other side can then read them all (or however many fit in its receive buffer) with a single read(). The only real difference is that the memcpy happens in the kernel instead of the receiver and that the kernel provides a useful blocking mechanism by default so you don’t have to manage that in userspace code. You need some kind of serialisation either way. It can be as simple as “this message has the shape of this C struct”, but that’s the case whether you’re talking shared memory command buffers or sending data over a socket (and there are good arguments for and against in both cases). You’re right that you don’t need to deal with “oh I received half a message” when using shared memory command buffers, but that’s more a code complexity thing someone solves once in wayland-client and then nobody has to really think about it again. It’s not really a performance concern (because hopefully the rx buffer is large enough for it to happen rarely) or application code complexity concern.
    • nananana9 4mo ago
      Sure. But imagine some piece of exotic hardware, e.g. computer mouse, that reports its movement at 1000Hz. If the compositor wants to notify the client as soon as possible, it has to send 1000 messages per second. If you buffer them, you're wasting the hardware's potential, if you don't buffer, them you're doing 1000 write()s per second, which is... ugh. If you're literally going to design the protocol from scratch and require all existing software to deal with it, why not pick the IPC model that doesn't have this issue.