[HN Gopher] Help the Graphics team track down an interesting Web...
___________________________________________________________________
Help the Graphics team track down an interesting WebRender bug
Author : Santosh83
Score : 187 points
Date : 2020-02-18 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mozillagfx.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mozillagfx.wordpress.com)
| godelski wrote:
| I used to have this problem __ALL__ the time. So I can give some
| specs to help anyone, because another comment suggests old
| hardware.
|
| I __only__ experienced the text tearing. It would basically be a
| slash through the screen, usually two or three where text would
| just be displaced. A small scroll would fix it.
|
| This has happened to me in both Manjaro and Ubuntu and on two
| different computers. The Manjaro is a Inspiron with a 1060Qmax.
| The Ubuntu has a GTK Titan Black (so old).
|
| I have not experienced these glitches in fairly recent memory. So
| probably last two versions of FF. These computers are my daily
| drivers and I keep them fairly up to date.
|
| Usually where these glitches would happen is in long form text
| articles. I don't recall seeing them on Reddit, but more like
| NYT. Hope this helps.
| rahuldottech wrote:
| I've been experiencing this too! On only one of my machines. I
| did a complete Windows reinstall but the problem persisted.
|
| It doesn't happen too often, but iirc I saw a text glitch
| sometime in the past few days. Moving my mouse over the
| glitched area or a small scroll solves it for me too.
| godelski wrote:
| Yeah I could get rid of it by scrolling or highlighting the
| text. I remember looking it up and only find like one small
| bug report a year ago. But I don't see it anymore. Are you on
| the newest FF? I don't use nightly and I haven't seen this
| problem in awhile.
| rahuldottech wrote:
| Just checked, I'm on latest regular FF, non-nightly. I
| don't recall seeing it in the past couple days so maaaaybe
| it's resolved now? I'll keep an eye out for it in case I
| see it again.
| miohtama wrote:
| But hunting is one of the easy to apply kinds of crowd wisdom.
| Let's hope Mozilla gets enough data to nail down the root cause.
| dx87 wrote:
| I was having a weird WebRender issue last year, except it was
| causing sudden reboots until the computer stayed powered off long
| enough for the GPU memory to be cleared. I had enabled WebRender
| in Linux (it's experimental, I know), and the computer would run
| fine for weeks at a time, then reboot out of nowhere. It would
| continue to reboot any time I opened firefox, sometimes a few
| minutes after starting firefox. The reboots would persist even
| when I would boot into Windows instead of Linux after one of the
| forced reboots. Once I narrowed it down to firefox causing the
| reboots, I started it in safe mode and disabled WebRender, and I
| haven't had any issues since. This was with a 1050TI graphics
| card.
| [deleted]
| egfx wrote:
| Looks a lot like older graphics cards over heating. I worked in
| graphics QA.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| I get this frequently. Usually when an update fires and I
| scroll. Have not yet been able to reproduce reliably. I really
| doubt it's overheating, since it takes a fraction of a second
| to happen and it couldn't heat up that quickly.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _it couldn 't heat up that quickly_
|
| It could, actually, especially if it's not well maintained.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| It's a $1200 GPU, I do make time to clean. I'm not saying
| it's Firefox specifically, perhaps a strange interaction
| between Firefox and the latest Nvidia drivers. But you're
| welcome to come check my machine.
| Lammy wrote:
| I experience this bug and my GPU is definitely not overheating.
| chrisan wrote:
| I will get the black box bug in outlook, temps are fine.
|
| I've never seen this in Firefox but makes me wonder if its
| windows related instead of FF/Outlook specific
| rplnt wrote:
| My Windows 7 + nvidia does these black boxes. The card also
| can't handle 2 monitors anymore (crashes the system from time
| to time).
| thefurman wrote:
| You should ask the people having the issue to switch graphics
| cards, PSU and RAM since this >90% smells like a memory/power
| issue. I think you've just gotten unlucky and collected a few
| similar reports of people having memory corruptions. I am
| guessing you cache renderings and that is why the issue sticks
| around until you re-render.
|
| If you want to reproduce it yourselves then perhaps try pointing
| a hairdryer from a distance at the various components until they
| start to create trouble, or alternatively just overclock them
| towards the breaking points.
| tomlong wrote:
| Heh, i was talking about this today. I do three days a month for
| a client where I use their computers and it's the only time I
| ever use Windows 10 and the only time I see this. I was asking
| around about it but no one else was using Firefox. Next time I'm
| in I'll pay more attention.
| j1elo wrote:
| I'm curious, why does a team working for Mozilla need to host
| their blog as a free account on wordpress.com? They really don't
| have a unified blog system to provide a more official feeling to
| all their different departments?
|
| Or is this just an unofficial blog from people that is unrelated
| to Mozilla?
| lucideer wrote:
| Given this is the mozillagfx blog, one would hope the "gfx"
| displayed on the blog were a little better: I can't make out the
| graphical glitches described in those tiny low-resolution
| screenshots.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| you dont see the glitches in this image
| https://mozillagfx.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/screen-shot-g...
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| Is that not how reddit looks?
| speedgoose wrote:
| There is old.reddit.com for the boomers.
| k1t wrote:
| Interesting to note that even the address bar appears to be
| affected. Several characters are missing from the URL in
| that screenshot.
| capableweb wrote:
| Yeah, when I had it happen to me, it happens to the
| entire Firefox instance, settings page, url bar, tab
| names, context menu (right click menu) and everything in
| between.
| cpeterso wrote:
| Much of Firefox's UI is HTML and can be affected by bugs
| like this. But it is very interesting to see that bug
| appears to affect both the app UI and web page at the
| same time.
| rmccue wrote:
| I am fairly certain I've seen this bug, but on macOS using a
| MBP's integrated graphics. I opted into WebRender a while ago via
| about:config, so I had figured it was just a random beta issue.
| Will have to see if I can capture it next time it happens!
| skept wrote:
| Me too. I've seen it happen on more than a couple of occasions
| while visiting Trello.com and YouTube.com. Firefox isn't my
| primary browser, partly for this reason.
|
| MBP 2013 with integrated graphics, running Mojave and the
| latest stable public release of Firefox. I haven't messed with
| about:config.
| MayeulC wrote:
| > Update: we have created the channel #gfx-wr-glitch on Matrix
|
| Funnily, this alias is incomplete and therefore not enough to
| join. A room ID might have been enough, but just an alias without
| a server part is worthless, a bit like someone left an e-mail
| adress as gfx-wr-glitch@, without specifying the rest.
|
| I've successfully joined trough #gfx-wr-glitch:mozilla.org,
| (roomid is !qaAtjMWizEgMcVSbNH:mozilla.org, no alias on
| matrix.org) and told them so.
|
| Edit: they fixed it. I wonder how often that happens with those
| new to Matrix?
| rvz wrote:
| This reminds me of the comments section or sometimes a mailing
| list for a particular bug in a driver or a low-level component
| and most of all the replies were from 'users' who weren't helping
| to solving the actual problem in the discussion. Then one day an
| unknown contributor not only was able to reproduce the bug but
| also sent an actual fix and ended up gaining commit access to the
| project after staying there for a while.
|
| Whenever I hear the 'mythical legend of the 10X rockstar
| developer', I think of them. Mozilla needs more of those
| developers to reproduce AND send patches to interesting bugs like
| this. Not the whining copypasta forum-posting 'users' calling
| themselves 'developers' who take many open-source projects like
| this for granted and don't appreciate the time spent by the
| maintainers of the project.
|
| Nowadays they're usually doing this on a developer social network
| through every maintainers nightmare 'The Issues Tab'.
| paxys wrote:
| Hah! As an open source maintainer for a mildly popular repo a
| big chunk of my time is spent weeding out people filing issues
| and opening PRs for trivial changes (like adding a line to the
| README file) just so they can claim to be a "contributor".
| Meanwhile there are a ton of issues that are ready to code with
| a full explanation and are even marked as such ("good first
| issue" or whatever else) that stay untouched.
|
| Regardless of community engagement, perceived interest, Github
| stars or whatever else -- finding a developer willing to spend
| actual time and effort to make a project better is very, very
| rare.
| jpxw wrote:
| Which repo, out of interest?
| sarah180 wrote:
| Yeah, people who drive-by PRs to unnecessarily fix a
| minuscule style or dependency-version issue is one of my pet
| peeves. I don't spend a lot of time on it, but this kind of
| cynical game playing sucks. These kinds of contributions
| produce a net loss for OSS, not a net win.
| j0e1 wrote:
| I have seen this in the past (I use FF-nightly on MacOS) but
| subsequent updates seemed to have fixed it. Although maybe some
| other factor affecting the frequency. Will keep an eye out.
| pg_is_a_butt wrote:
| I thought I was the only one seeing this... they claim it's only
| windows 10, but I'm also seeing it on a 2012 macbook pro i5 intel
| graphics 3000. Not very often, but enough to be very annoyed and
| concerned by it.
|
| My fear is some other program is gaining access to portions of
| the screen or video memory to scrape for banking information
| using ocr or something like that. Sometimes the glitches will be
| filled with upside down and stretched/keystone shifted versions
| of an area of a rendered page from a different tab. The keystone
| shift triggers my off-by-1 memory allocation bug sense... But it
| might be some other driver issue or exploit causing that on
| purpose somehow (like rowhammer). I fear this is going to take
| years to track down.
| Const-me wrote:
| I'm almost sure it's incorrect usage of D3D. I've encountered and
| fixed similar bugs in my 3D graphics code.
|
| Based on the symptoms and difficulties to reproduce, I think what
| you see on the screenshots are incomplete renders. The FF code
| submitted some draw calls to GPU, and copied the render target
| texture without waiting for draw calls to complete. A good way to
| fix is use a D3D11_QUERY_EVENT query to wait for completion of
| rendering.
|
| If all GPU access happens through D3D11 this shouldn't happen
| i.e. the API guarantees to wait for the completion of previously
| submitted draw calls. It may happen in practice when mixing
| multiple GPU APIs, e.g. when using DXGI surface sharing to pass
| textures between D3D11 and DX9. Also, it may happen when using
| D3D from multiple threads. Easy way to detect the latter, set
| D3D11_CREATE_DEVICE_DEBUG flag when creating the device, and read
| warnings in debug output of the process.
|
| Another possibility is just bugs in rendering code. To
| troubleshoot them, https://renderdoc.org/ is awesome.
| Unfortunately, if the FF doesn't use D3D to present, only
| rendering to textures, some changes to FF's source code is
| required to capture frames with RD, see this page for details:
| https://renderdoc.org/docs/in_application_api.html
| ehsankia wrote:
| Makes sense that a delay sensitive bug is hard to repro too. I
| have definitely seen similar artifacts throughout the years in
| Chrome too come and go, seems like it's a common problem in
| browser D3D implementations.
| Const-me wrote:
| A few years ago a customer reported a bug in my software
| which only happened with a specific 3D scene, on specific
| GPUs (my desktop rendered that scene fine), and was only
| happening rarely. That's how I have learned about that GPU
| synchronization issue across graphics APIs which may cause
| incomplete renders.
| core-questions wrote:
| I saw the bug on Ubuntu 18 this morning, on FF 72.0.2 on Nvidia
| 435.21-0ubuntu0.18.04.2. Can't reproduce. Assumed it was
| because I have 2x 4K screens plus another 1080p one and I often
| get weird graphics issues with this setup.
| clarry wrote:
| I don't know if it's the same bug but I've certainly seen a
| _similar_ bug (weird glitches in display that disappear when
| you scroll) on Fedora with AMD graphics (open source amdgpu
| driver, X), running Firefox nightly. One screen only..
| hrgiger wrote:
| Yep I think you are right and I think I can replicate and I
| dont think its just windows:)
|
| https://imgur.com/a/fpnWKhm
|
| Another post mentioned 2x4k screens so I thought creating load
| might delay expected events so I set up gpu to lowest:
|
| "echo low >
| /sys/class/drm/card0/device/power_dpm_force_performance_level"
|
| Then opened 2 drm and lot of youtube videos with new tabs and
| keep refreshing reddit, after a minute or two got black boxes
|
| specs here: https://pastebin.com/JXE2HFUu
|
| EDIT: Nope its not it turns out marvel has black theme, sorry
| misleading comment, move along
| Const-me wrote:
| > I dont think its just windows
|
| I have no idea how exactly FF uses GPU. However, all 3D APIs,
| especially modern ones, are just ways to access the
| functionality of underlying GPU hardware, which doesn't
| depend on the OS.
|
| If FF uses Vulkan, the direct equivalent of that query is
| probably VkFence, but unlike D3D11 VK has other ways too,
| subpasses and VkSubpassDependency, and maybe something else I
| forgot.
| hrgiger wrote:
| Yeah sorry my bad , turns out marvel had black theme
| leeoniya wrote:
| as muizelaar says below,
|
| "WebRender is actually using D3D through OpenGL on top of
| ANGLE"
|
| maybe an angle bug, then.
| [deleted]
| est31 wrote:
| This is interesting, as Webrender does not use D3D but OpenGL,
| so the parts of Firefox that use D3D might interact badly with
| it.
|
| There is work to port Webrender to gfx-rs which abstracts over
| Vulkan, Metal and modern DirectX but it seems to only live in
| the fork of the Hungarian Szeged university for now:
| https://github.com/szeged/webrender/issues/198
|
| Maybe then Firefox can purely use DirectX?
| muizelaar wrote:
| WebRender is actually using D3D through OpenGL on top of
| ANGLE
| leeoniya wrote:
| i was also wondering about the gfx-rs port. i've been
| watching that repo for over a year, and it's quite
| impossible to tell how far along things actually are today.
| est31 wrote:
| Didn't know that, thanks for the info!
| modeless wrote:
| The state of debugging for graphics code is deplorable. When you
| run code on a GPU you almost always have a gigantic closed source
| binary blob underneath you, the graphics driver. Graphics drivers
| contain complete compilers that munge your code with a focus on
| speed over correctness. The graphics driver is often years out of
| date, and you can't even run it yourself to reproduce issues
| unless you go out and buy the exact hardware that each user has.
|
| The state of the art in debugging GPU issues is to have a closet
| full of random hardware purchased used on eBay that hopefully
| contains something close enough to what you need to reproduce the
| issue you're working on.
|
| Most fancy debugging tools pretend that GPUs don't exist and GPU-
| focused debuggers are incredibly buggy and feature-poor, not to
| mention hardware specific in many cases.
| Const-me wrote:
| It's not that bad, at least on Windows.
|
| > contain complete compilers that munge your code with a focus
| on speed over correctness
|
| If you're a developer, the right tools are available. Set
| D3D11_CREATE_DEVICE_DEBUG when creating the device, also run
| debug builds of your HLSL shaders. You'll get huge amount of
| error checking and diagnostics this way, including very
| detailed and specific messages about incorrect API use.
|
| > GPU-focused debuggers are incredibly buggy and feature-poor
|
| I indeed found and reported bugs in GPUs and their drivers
| (mostly Intel GPUs), but it only was a few times over my
| career. The majority of times they were bugs in my code, not in
| GPU drivers, and renderdoc.org helped a lot fixing them.
|
| I generally agree GPU debugging is harder than CPU debugging,
| but I don't see how open source driver gonna help. It's an
| unfortunate combination of execution model (many thousands
| hardware threads running your code in parallel), external piece
| of hardware completely separate and asynchronous from the CPU,
| and very limited ways to interact or even output data (you
| can't printf messages, nor allocate dynamic memory, from GPU
| code).
| leeoniya wrote:
| > The majority of times they were bugs in my code, not in GPU
| drivers
|
| the Servo/WebRender folks maintain such a list of driver bugs
| with workarounds, you may find useful:
|
| https://github.com/servo/webrender/wiki/Driver-issues
| MayeulC wrote:
| > It's not that bad, at least on Windows.
|
| Funny you say that. I've seen many developers praising the
| open source stack under Linux, as you can step right into the
| driver and fix it yourself, instead of landing in symbols
| land.
|
| Feral Interactive mentioned it there, for instance:
| https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/interview-with-
| feral-...
| brundolf wrote:
| I've never understood the logic behind closed-source drivers.
| Nobody pays for a driver, people pay for hardware. If you want
| your hardware to get better support, and therefore become more
| popular, aren't you incentivized to open-source the drivers?
| ensiferum wrote:
| It'd expose trade secrets and give away the details basically
| giving away any competitive edge.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| There is a disincentive: patents/IP as one thing (competitors
| could deduce how your stuff works from oss drivers), and the
| other thing is exclusivity with games: especially nvidia has
| deals with game developers to tweak their games in drivers
| (!) - things like hand optimized shaders or other rendering
| settings, that provide superior quality for the gamer, so
| that gamers prefer to buy nvidia cards over AMD.
|
| With open source drivers, AMD or Intel could just walk in and
| steal whatever optimizations nvidia has made for a game.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Everything that is patented is already fully disclosed to
| the public. It's a requirement of getting a patent. Keeping
| drivers closed-source is more likely to be due to the
| presence of trade secrets or that the code includes
| licensed bits that the manufacturer doesn't have the right
| to disclose the source code to.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| With patents you're afaik only required to describe the
| process itself - but not the implementation in code, and
| especially not optimizations fitted to your architecture.
| sarah180 wrote:
| From the USPTO:
|
| > The specification must include a written description of
| the invention and of the manner and process of making and
| using it, and is required to be in such full, clear,
| concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled
| in the technological area to which the invention
| pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
| make and use the same.
|
| You don't have to provide code, but you have to teach the
| reader of your patent how to make and use the invention.
| et1337 wrote:
| One possible factor: graphics drivers are full of app-
| specific hacks to make benchmarks look good, on the level of
| "if game == GTAV then run super special fast code instead of
| whatever the game is telling us to do"
| metalliqaz wrote:
| they definitely do that, but they don't keep it secret
| anymore. they even advertise it as "game ready drivers"
| from nvidia.
| cpeterso wrote:
| Companies think open-source drivers will reveal "special
| sauce" implementation details of their graphics hardware to
| their competitors.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| No, they think it will prove their use of bog-standard
| techniques to people who laid patent minefields, instantly
| fueling a hundred lawsuits.
|
| The USPTO is terrible at performing prior art searches and
| terrible at rejecting obvious claims, so there are legions
| of trolls waiting in the wings to jump on them if they go
| open source.
| modeless wrote:
| > Nobody pays for a driver
|
| This is not true. Driver quality is a major differentiating
| factor between GPUs and absolutely influences purchasing
| decisions.
|
| GPU makers don't want their competitors to be able to take
| parts of their drivers and benefit from them. They want to
| protect trade secrets. They want to avoid revealing how many
| of their competitors' patents they are violating. They don't
| own the rights to some third party code or trade secrets that
| are incorporated in their drivers. They want to avoid
| revealing future product plans.
|
| Of course it's debatable whether closed source drivers
| actually help with all of the above reasons, or whether they
| are good reasons to begin with. But those are the reasons.
| 0x00000000 wrote:
| I can understand that AMD and Nvidia have spent a ton of time
| and money developing their drivers and that ML/GPGPU
| performance and features are highly competitive.
|
| But embedded GPUs are so fucking obnoxious. There's about a
| million of them and they pretty much all have proprietary
| binary blobs. Pretty worrying for something that could
| potentially allow any device to be remotely compromised via
| some malicious webGL or something. Good luck getting the
| manufacturer to continue supporting it 3 years from now
| though
| z3t4 wrote:
| I guess, it makes it harder to copy the hardware design,
| which is often off the shelf parts. Once you have the
| finished design it's relative cheap to mass produce.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _aren 't you incentivized to open-source the drivers?_
|
| Opening the source to drivers as they exist now might expose
| IP that might not be yours to share, IP that you aren't
| licensed to use or open you up to liability because of how
| bad your drivers actually are.
|
| That said, I do believe hardware companies should prioritize
| open-source drivers to benefit themselves and their
| customers.
| simias wrote:
| I think the incentive to keep drivers closed is not huge, but
| the incentive to open source them is effectively nil,
| especially from the point of view of "management types".
|
| It may on may not end up improving support, but you can't
| really know that ahead of time. Then you have the risk of
| people using your code against you, finding vulnerabilities,
| patent/IP violations or simply reverse-engineering your
| hardware more easily. You also won't be able to cheat in
| benchmarks anymore.
|
| There's a cultural aspect to it too. Paying all these
| engineers to write that code was expensive, and now you want
| to give it all away _for free_? Most companies never do that
| for anything, why would they make an exception?
|
| It's dumb, I too would love for these drivers to become open
| source, but it doesn't look like it will be happening any
| time soon.
| sarah180 wrote:
| > Paying all these engineers to write that code was
| expensive, and now you want to give it all away for free?
| Most companies never do that for anything, why would they
| make an exception?
|
| I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I've been doing
| professional software development for more than twenty
| years and have never encountered this. There's plenty of
| "we should be paid for our work and innovation" but nothing
| so reflexive as what you describe here.
| gputhrowaway630 wrote:
| Graphics drivers contain competitive optimizations that make
| a significant difference in the performance of the hardware.
| Since these optimizations are both costly (in R&D) and allow
| for the vendors GPU to perform better than a competitors,
| they do not share these optimizations (that a competitor may
| or may not use to improve their own driver). And since people
| pay ultimately for performance, not hardware, the driver is
| just as important as the silicon.
|
| Your second point is correct, that open source drivers do get
| better support. AMD has better support on Linux than NVIDIA
| because it has an officially supported open source driver
| (AMDGPU). However, the support they receive from open-
| sourcing the drivers is not always the R&D required to gain a
| competitive performance advantage, limiting the
| competitiveness of an open source driver (at least compared
| to proprietary).
| ksec wrote:
| > aren't you incentivized to open-source the drivers?
|
| No, Not at all.
|
| If we go all the way back to 3Dfx era, we have seen dozens of
| GPU ( or 2D/3D Graphics Accelerator before the term GPU was
| coined ) trying to compete in the PC space, 3D Labs, Matrox,
| PowerVR, Intel I740, S3, ATI, Nvidia, Rendition, ( These are
| on top of my head, sorry if I missed any of your favourite ).
| None of them had much problem with designing hardware, their
| maximum triangles, ( If I remember correctly it was one of
| the unit used to market graphics card before GFLOPS were used
| ) were all on par with each other. And some even exceed the
| current dominant players, but in the end they all failed.
|
| Why? Because they cant get the drivers / software to optimise
| the use of their Hardware. They do not perform any where
| close to their potential in Tomb Raider or DOOM. There are
| huge amount of optimisation built up over the years. As
| Nvidia once said ( That was even before their huge bet on
| CUDA ), 60% of their engineers are Software.
|
| To point where the I am going to say, the Driver _IS_ the
| GPU. You are just paying the hardware to use it.
|
| * And now I feel very old just typing this up. :/
| monocasa wrote:
| They do sketch things, like keep a database of third party
| shaders that warranted hand optimization by their driver
| team, and their replacement shaders. I'd be surprised if they
| could open source such a thing. It's an IP nightmare.
| apetresc wrote:
| Why would that be sketchy? I'm sure there's lots of bad
| things in there, but hand-optimizing common third-party
| code paths doesn't seem like it should be one of them.
|
| Would there be some sort of uproar if people found out that
| Firefox had special optimizations for common websites, for
| instance?
| monocasa wrote:
| Because they use partial verbatim copies of other
| people's shader code to make that happen.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If I found out my competitors made sweetheart deals with
| hardware manufacturers so that their software worked
| better on their hardware than my software does, I'd be
| pissed.
|
| > _Would there be some sort of uproar if people found out
| that Firefox had special optimizations for common
| websites, for instance?_
|
| It would ruffle a few feathers if Chrome was optimized
| for Google properties, but ran their competitors' code
| with a performance penalty.
|
| One of the issues in _United States v Microsoft_ was that
| IE used optimized APIs that Microsoft 's competitors,
| like Netscape, didn't have access to.
| akersten wrote:
| > Would there be some sort of uproar if people found out
| that Firefox had special optimizations for common
| websites, for instance?
|
| There was a comment on this site a few days ago that
| claimed Google was being anti-competitive by hard-coding
| a list of their web properties into Chrome for it to send
| diagnostic info when visiting them, so yes, anything
| where there's a special path for some 1st/3rd parties but
| not others could be construed in many ways that look bad
| for the author.
| kevingadd wrote:
| On the bright side the situation is at least better on Windows
| - D3D11 and D3D9 both have well-specified behavior and full
| software rasterizers that can be used to render a reference
| version of a given frame and then debug it at a pixel level.
| Wish I had something like that for OpenGL... console game
| developers have had toys like this for ages.
|
| It's 2020 and I still sometimes swap my renderer from OpenGL to
| D3D9 when I need to debug a graphics issue because the D3D9
| graphics debugging tools are that much better than cutting-edge
| GL debuggers. (I'd use the D3D11 debugging tools but my 11
| backend doesn't work right)
| dmead wrote:
| is this a real request for help, or a marketing-look-at-our-blog
| thing?
| Lammy wrote:
| If you can suggest a better way to get word about a tricky bug
| out to people who don't usually look at Mozilla's bug tracker
| I'm sure they'd be happy to hear it :)
| jbonisteel wrote:
| This is a real request for help!
| rafaelvasco wrote:
| When in doubt assume the best of people, not the worst by
| default.
| tvelichkov wrote:
| This very much sound like a similar issue Linux users are facing
| from more than a year and it's still not resolved?
| https://askubuntu.com/questions/1088324/firefox-becoming-unr...
| twic wrote:
| I don't think so - in the Linux bug, Firefox becomes
| unresponsive, whereas in the bug in the article, Firefox runs
| as normal, and the blanks can be cleared by scrolling or
| mousing over.
|
| I see a somewhat similar bug on my Linux box, where windows
| flicker between black and normal, and the flickering stops if i
| focus on the window. I don't think it's specific to Firefox,
| though - i believe i've seen all sorts of apps do it. I do have
| an nvidia graphics card, FWIW.
| tvelichkov wrote:
| As someone who experience this very often I can't say that
| Firefox is becoming unresponsive, you can still scroll
| up/down, change tabs, etc.. but the all pages are glitched
| similar (even worse) to the screenshots.
| reuben_scratton wrote:
| I haven't seen this particular issue but I've seen very similar
| bugs in my own work where GPU and CPU are not properly sync'd
| when using glyph or small image cache textures.
|
| E.g. gpu has a frame pending, CPU updates glyph cache, GPU
| renders pending frame using incorrect cache data.
| electrotype wrote:
| Why the Nightly version only, I'm curious?
| sleavey wrote:
| The Firefox developers only patch security vulnerabilities in
| standard Firefox releases. All minor bug fixes and new features
| go into Nightly and only after a few months into stock Firefox.
| cpeterso wrote:
| Presumably there are other graphics bugs that have been fixed
| in Firefox Nightly but still exist in the Beta or Stable
| Release channels. Best to debug and reproduce the bug in the
| code closest to version the Mozilla engineers are using.
| petargyurov wrote:
| This bug happens to me somewhat often. In fact it happened to me
| yesterday. It fixes itself after a couple of seconds. No idea how
| it happens - I haven't noticed a pattern.
|
| I have a GTX 1070.
| godelski wrote:
| This is interesting. I have a 1060Q and used to get the text
| tearing all the time. In the last (2 or 3?) FF updates I have
| yet to see it happen. (Currently v73.0)
| abacadaba wrote:
| same, gp107. ubuntu, usually after session resume.
|
| the good: it used to crash my pc when the render process would
| just hang at 100% after resume, doesnt anymore
|
| the bad: sometimes i have to scroll the page and tab bar after
| resume now
|
| progress
| a_f wrote:
| I too have seen the same issue, and I also have a GTX 1070. I
| also sometimes see the characters on a page suddenly not render
| too, or parts of the page go black like the squares they
| mention. I will keeping an eye out to see if I can get some
| repro steps.
| jbonisteel wrote:
| Could you file a bug for us?
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core&comp...
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm in the same boat with Windows 10 + nvidia 2080ti. Not
| sure why you want a bug report filled when neither of us have
| any way of reproducing the issue nor more information about
| where/when it happens.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-18 23:00 UTC)