Slashdot Mirror
Gosling: If I Designed a Window System Today...
An anonymous reader writes "In his blog entry for the 10th August, James Gosling (finally) publishes a short paper he wrote in 2002 entitled 'Window System Design: If I had to do it over again in 2002'. His design is to make the window system do the absolute minimum and move all the work into the client."
I'd make it opaque to keep my arch nemisis, the Evil Yellow Face from entering my underground command center... though my mom alredy complains the basement is too dark.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Sounds like it's back to the future.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
As Gosling mentions, X is moving in this direction today. In a year or two, when the newest X changes are stable, the average GTK+ or Qt app will talk to the server via OpenGL. On most DRI-like setups, the route from GL to GPU looks like:
OpenGL -> userspace command buffer -> graphics memory (DMA via Direct Rendering Manager).
Text layout, fonts, etc, are all done server-side, and the only thing the "server" sees are pixmaps and GL commands.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
He's not suggesting sending over huge amounts of pixel data. If the app speaks OpenGL, you can ship over the OpenGL command stream. Since OpenGL was designed to support network rendering from day 1, this can be very efficient.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Doubtful. Stripping things out is easy. Writing new stuff that works is hard. X is already moving in the direction Gosling mentioned. Both GTK+ 2.8 and Qt 4 will support rendering via OpenGL. Once you're rendering with OpenGL, you're 90% to wher eGosling is going. At that point, the X-server (actually, the DRI), becomes mostly a manager of window contexts, and doesn't lie at all in the hot-path from application to GPU. Sure, the X servers unused features will take up some space (not too much, though, the X server is only 1.7MB on my system, much smaller than the OpenGL library!) but that's not a huge price to pay for backwards compatibility.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There's a reason nobody runs client-server. Desktop systems with fast processors are just too cheap.
No. You've read him correctly. What Gosling is saying is a simplified version of the X.org roadmap.
For example, X11 contains a font renderer. The design is really ancient. No anti-aliasing. Poor kerning. Clients couldn't access the glyphs very easily, which made it impossible to do arbitrary things like strokepaths or proper printing. It kind of sucked. A number of font extensions were considered for XFree86. Any one of them would have addressed all of the existing issues but they were heavyweight solutions.
So in the end Keith Packard wrote a better solution. He implemented the XRender extension. This extension simply knows how to draw rows of glyphs. It also knows about alpha masks (Porter Duff compositing). The client now turns the font (typically TrueType) into alpha-masked glyphs and sends the glyphs to the X server. If you're using a GNOME or KDE desktop with antialiased fonts then you're using Keith's XRender extension and client-side font rendering instead of the X11 font renderer. This is only practical because the client-side libraries (eg, libxft2) are shared.
Another interesting example of "slimming down" the X server is the Composite extension. Rather than implement a heavy compositing engine in the X server, Keith designed this extension so it simply renders the window into offscreen memory. Another extension, XDamage, tells a special client called the "compositor" when any region of the window changes. The compositor then uses the XRender extension to render the damaged region with appropriate drop shadows and/or alpha masks. Notice how the rendering is still done by the X server so it can be hardware accelerated.
For the future of X.org there is more of this "slimming down" being planned. Jim Gettys and Keith Packard gave a presentation in July 2004 where they suggest the future of X is as an OpenGL client. They are both keen on a new design where the X server stops being the arbitrator of video hardware. Instead it becomes an OpenGL client with direct access to the video hardware through the DRM, just like every other DRI client. There is a simpler version of that paper in the short slideshow Life in X Land.
So you don't want a windowing system that is flexible, because people might want to take advantage of that flexibility?
I think your reasoning is a misguided attempt to solve by technical means what is really a politicial/sociological problem. The proper solution is to have a strong set of UI guidelines and standard libraries that make it trivially easy to follow those standards, not to limit the capability of the system just because you don't trust people not to abuse it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
OK. So let's run with that idea. We still have multiple clients and one set of hardware, so we need to arbitrate the access. We also need to have a common place where the clients can share information like window clip lists. Then there are issues like drag and drop, cut and paste, etc which also require inter-client communication. And how do you solve the issue of two clients seeing the mouse button being pressed, and both assuming that the click was for them?
At one stage you realise you need to have a program, somewhere, that coordinates all of the clients. Assuming this won't be the kernel, it must be another userspace program. We call this program "the X server". And because we have all these clients in userspace, and the X server is also in userspace, they need to use some form of inter-process communication. XFree86 and X.org already use UNIX sockets; one of the fastest IPC methods available. The only thing faster would be shared memory but that's been tried before and it's more hassle than it's worth.
Now admittedly there are some situations where the clients simply need to talk directly to the hardware. For example the client needs to upload a 3D texture or render an MPEG-2 frame. For those situations it makes no sense to send that data to the X server first. So for those situations we do have solutions that bypass the X server and go directly to the hardware. These include the DRI extension, the MIT-SHM extension and the DGA extension.
Curiously, the Mac OS X window system implements almost the exact design Jim Gosling describes in his paper.
All drawing work is done on the client side, and the window server has nothing to do with fonts, cut/paste support or much other higher level work. The window server simply assembles the drawing buffers to the displays (via hardware or software) and routes events, using hints of the foreground application and the visible window area to manage the task.
A consistent look and feel is derived by providing a consistent set of high level toolkits, residing on a set of lower level drawing frameworks.
Shared libraries make sure the needed code is readily available and resident in memory. Font are cached and vended as shared memory resources using Mach's virtual memory semantics. Drawing buffers also leverage Mach VM semantics.
The problem is that there isn't enough RAM to preload all the applications. My PC during the day will run (and this is a typical work day) Word, Excel, Outlook, Visio, Project, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and an assortment of programs that don't concern me like virus scanners.
If all of these applications tried to preload themselves on startup then your swap would grind itself into dust and boottime would be in excess of 30 minutes.
It's false reasoning to say that Word takes only 2 seconds. It takes 2 seconds plus whatever time it added to the boot sequence. And if the first application you run isn't Word then there is a good chance that the preloaded Word will be swapped to disk anyway, making the next instance of Word take significantly longer than 2 seconds.
Take note that Mozilla also uses the preload trick. My work machine has consumed all 256MB of RAM and 450MB of swap after a fresh reboot and a login. That's 450MB of intensive swap activity that slowed down my boot sequence. If I just want to check my appointments in Outlook then why am I forced to wait for Word and Mozilla to fight over the swap? It's ludicrous.
Letting the app take care of its own window borders is a bad idea as well. This is one of the worst parts in M$ Windows - once an app hangs, there is no way of closing or minimizing a window or simply of getting it out of the way. It's way better to have this handled by a separate process.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
DGA is Direct Graphics Access. It allows a client to directly access the framebuffer. The client needs to handle all the pixel packing models (eg, RGB555, RGB888, RGBA8888) and work out the line strides and so on.
MIT-SHM is MIT Shared Memory. Though the magic of shared memory, the client and server share a piece of memory containing an XImage or a Pixmap. The client can change the contents and then tell the server to render the image/pixmap to screen.
DRI is the most complicated of the bunch. It stands for Direct Rendering Infrastructure. The basic explanation is that it allows a client to send commands directly to the video card. At the moment the only DRI implementation is OpenGL. So for example, quake3 links to libGL.so which is a DRI aware library. The library finds out which video card you have and loads the appropriate video card driver. This driver knows how to turn OpenGL commands into the hardware commands for your video card. These commands are shoved into a buffer which is provided by DRM (the DRI kernel module) and then blasted off to the video card. X only gets involved to setup cliplists and create windows; the actual 3D rendering is all done from the client directly to the hardware.
Those 3 extensions take care of the biggest bottlenecks in X: framebuffer access, image transfers, and 3D streams. There are some other issues with the X pipe - things like latency moreso than throughput - but I'm not sure that removing the X pipe would solve those problems. The biggest issues with X on Linux right now are things like latency, single-threading, libraries that block, lack of double buffering, lack of synchronisation between window managers and widgets and clients, etc.