Status Update
Comments
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #2
This is a particularly hard device to come by - do you happen to have access to the device? If so could you provide us with the output of: adb shell dumpsys media.camera > info.txt
Thanks!
jp...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com <jp...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com> #3
Stacktrace:
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:355)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions(Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions(CameraX.java:943)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle(CameraX.java:293)
at androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle(ProcessCameraProvider.java:227)
Below are some findings based on our debugging
When Dex is connected
previewConfig.getMaxResolution() is returning "731x411" as maxSize.
Inside Preview.Builder.build() -> Default_MAX_resolution is set to "CameraX.getSurfaceManager().getPreviewSize()" which is 731x411
this is being picked as maxSize.
While rendering maxSize is 731x411 and minSize is 640x480 and below are available outputSizes
0 = {Size@11860} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11861} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11862} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11863} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11864} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11865} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11866} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11867} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11868} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11869} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11870} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11871} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11872} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11873} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11874} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11875} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11876} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11877} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11878} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11879} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11880} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11881} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11882} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11883} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11884} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11885} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11886} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11887} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11888} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11889} "176x144"
and couldn't find any size in this range.
When Dex not connected
minsize = 640x480
maxsize = 1920x1080
0 = {Size@11836} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11837} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11838} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11839} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11840} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11841} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11842} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11843} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11844} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11845} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11846} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11847} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11848} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11849} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11850} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11851} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11852} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11853} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11854} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11855} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11856} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11857} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11858} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11859} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11860} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11861} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11862} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11863} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11864} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11865} "176x144"
and we have 12 available sizes in this range
Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:: getPreviewSize()
mCameraSupportedSurfaceCombinationMap.get(cameraId).getSurfaceDefinition().getPreviewSize() = "1920x1080"
cameraId=0
jp...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com <jp...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com> #4
The issue root cause is that CameraX will default filter out sizes smaller than 640x480. For Preview, the max size will be limited to under display size. I checked the HW spec info for the issue related devices. Display size of FUJITSU F-04J/F-05J is 360x640. That will result int that no size exists in the conditions that is larger or equal to 640x480 and smaller or equal to 360x640.
A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
For device FUJITSU arrowsM04, I checked its HW spec info and its display size I found is 1280x720. It seems that the problem should not exist in the device.
Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device? What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #5
> A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
OK. I will try it.
> Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device?
We receive the crash report (Crashlytics) that this crash has occurred on arrowsM04.
We don't have this device so we can't confirm that the problem really exist on arrowsM04.
> What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
We can't investigate it for the same reason.
Thank you.
jp...@gmail.com <jp...@gmail.com> #6
This issue happened on devices that the display size is smaller than 640x480. In original auto-resolution mechanism, supported sizes smaller than 640x480 will be default filter out.
The auto-resolution mechanism encodes the guaranteed configurations tables in CameraDevice#createCaptureSession(SessionConfiguration). It defines that the PREVIEW size is the small one of the device display size and 1080p. The PREVIEW size will be the maximal size limitation for Preview use case. The reason it limits the size to display size and 1080p is the stream output in display size or 1080p has been able to provide good enough preview quality. Therefore, auto-resolution mechanism will limit the selected size to be smaller than the small one of the device display size and 1080p.
With above two conditions, in this issue, all sizes smaller than 640x480 have been filter out, therefore, there is no size smaller than the display size 320x240 can be selected to use. And cause the exception.
Solution:
When the display size is smaller than 640x480, auto-resolution mechanism won't filter out those small sizes smaller than 640x480. This makes those small size be left and can be selected for the Preview use case on small display devices.
The solution has been merged and will be included in next CameraX release.
jp...@gmail.com <jp...@gmail.com> #7
Hello.
This crash still occurs.
- CAMERAX VERSION: 1.0.0-beta4
- ANDROID OS BUILD NUMBER: Android 7.1.1
- DEVICE NAME: FUJITSU F-02H
We receive following crash report from FUJITSU F-02H. So far We have received this crash report only from F-02H.
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:349)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions (Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions (CameraX.java:949)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle (CameraX.java:351)
androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle (ProcessCameraProvider.java:230)
(our application's package name).CameraFragment.bindCameraUseCases (CameraFragment.java:174)
jp...@gmail.com <jp...@gmail.com> #8
Could you help to provide the following information to clarify the issue?
1. Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
2. Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
li...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com <li...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com> #9
- Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
Yes
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
Since we don't have this device, we'll try to collect this information in the next version of our app. The next version will be released later this month.
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #10
Hello.
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
We have collected the output of the device where the crash occurs.
Device1
- Model : arrows Be F-05J
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Device2
- Model : Fujitsu arrows M04
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Additional Information
CameraX version : 1.0.0-beta04
We collect the supported output sizes by following code.
val errorString = buildString {
append("The supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE: ")
(requireContext().getSystemService(Context.CAMERA_SERVICE) as CameraManager).apply {
cameraIdList.forEachIndexed { index, cameraId ->
val msg = if (VERSION.SDK_INT >= VERSION_CODES.M) {
val configurationMap =
getCameraCharacteristics(cameraId).get(CameraCharacteristics.SCALER_STREAM_CONFIGURATION_MAP)
val sizes = configurationMap?.getOutputSizes(ImageFormat.PRIVATE)
"CameraId $index: ${sizes?.joinToString(" ,")}"
} else {
"CameraId $index: This device version is under M."
}
append(msg)
}
}
}
li...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com <li...@samsung.corp-partner.google.com> #11
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #12
I tried to find the device specs and both 720x1280
size display. For the camera id 0 device, it is a different case that the display size is larger than 640x480
but the device only supports a 480x480
size. The case also caused the same IllegalArgumentException and was also fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Before 480x480
size would be filtered out and then caused the IllegalArgumentException. After it was merged, the 640x480
size threshold was removed and then the 480x480
size would be kept and selected to use.
It looks like 1.0.0-beta04
release had been used to collect the supported sizes information. But the issue should have been fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
CameraX's 1.0.0-beta04
version. Maybe you can also consider to upgrade to the latest 1.0.0-rc01
version for your application. Thanks.
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #13
Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
We collect informations only from the device on which IllegalArgumentException happened.
Our latest app uses CameraX version 1.0.0-beta10
and this issue still occurres.
However we don't receive crash report from Fujitsu arrows Be F-05J
or Fujitsu arrows M04
so far. (This doesn't mean this issue is fixed on these devices because our app is heavily rely on camera so these device's user wouldn't use our app anymore.)
Instead, we receive crash report from
- Model : Fujitsu F-03K
- Android Version : 7.1.2
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0 : 480x480
CameraId 1 : 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #14
I missed some settings when I simulated the issue by robolectric test so that I was not able to reproduce it. Now, I can reproduce the issue if the device only supports one 480x480 resolution. I'm working on the solution and target to make it included in next release.
li...@gmail.com <li...@gmail.com> #15
Branch: androidx-main
commit 69d15dff7bb857ee33a0f643ff42a0f8bc475ab2
Author: charcoalchen <charcoalchen@google.com>
Date: Fri Jan 08 18:30:03 2021
Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Do not filter out sizes smaller than 640x480 when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Relnote:"Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480."
Bug: 150506192
Test: SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest
Change-Id: I2a63ce8e2ad42a9cc060c8635ac3603bf440b1ec
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombination.java
M camera/camera-camera2/src/test/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest.java
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #16
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #17
A missing attachment for above thread.
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #18
But, I do not see such logic in RescheduleReceiver. Am I missing something? I was pondering, if 1st goAsync occur, and then 2nd goAsync occur again before the mRescheduleReceiverResult.finish() associated with 1st goAsync is executed, can 2nd goAsync causes ANR?
We think that it is highly likely that second goAsync
triggers ANR. We actually even tried to address it in aosp/2401352. However apps that use nightly build of androidx (you can use it too,
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #19
Hi Googlers,
It isn't clear on why the initial proposed fix (which is now reverted) can cause spike in ANR.
It isn't totally clear too, on why current 2.8.0 WM is causing ANR. Hypothesis provided by Samsung engineer might hold true.
I am not able to test BOOT_COMPLETED as it is not easy to test -
I however try to do a "fast" manual time adjustment, to fire 2 TIME_SET.
Using the following code
public class MyBroadcastReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver {
private static final Executor dateTimeReminderExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
@Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
Log.i("CHEOK", intent.getAction() + " : onReceive -> " + this);
final PendingResult result = goAsync();
dateTimeReminderExecutor.execute(() -> {
Log.i("CHEOK", "Begin sleep -> " + this);
try {
Thread.sleep(20000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Log.i("CHEOK", "Finish sleep -> " + this);
try {
} finally {
if (result != null) {
result.finish();
Log.i("CHEOK", "result.finish() la -> " + this);
}
}
});
}
}
I obtain the following outcome, in both API 33 and API 32.
android.intent.action.TIME_SET : onReceive -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@9140719
Begin sleep -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@9140719
Finish sleep -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@9140719
result.finish() la -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@9140719
android.intent.action.TIME_SET : onReceive -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@92a09bf
Begin sleep -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@92a09bf
Finish sleep -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@92a09bf
result.finish() la -> com.yocto.myapplication.MyBroadcastReceiver@92a09bf
Based on the observation
- 1st TIME_SET will trigger BroadcastReceiver's onReceive.
- 2nd TIME_SET will not trigger BroadcastReceiver's onReceive, after 1st TIME_SET has called goAsync and before calling result.finish. 2nd TIME_SET will only trigger BroadcastReceiver's onReceive, after 1st TIME_SET call result.finish.
- Different instances of BroadcastReceiver are used to serve 1st and 2nd TIME_SET
If that is the case, 2nd action are still "waiting" to enter RescheduleReceiver's onReceive.
2nd action might not have chance to call WorkManagerImpl's setReschedulePendingResult to "accidentally" override member variable mRescheduleReceiverResult, because the 1st action has not called mRescheduleReceiverResult.finish()
This is my very rough initial observation, and they might not hold true.
I am not able to reproduce any ANR even I have "Enable background ANR dialogs". Can you?
Thank you for your efforts.
li...@gmail.com <li...@gmail.com> #20
Owner
Sergey Vasilinetc
Revert "Revert "Fix ANR in RescheduleReceiver""
This reverts commit 097b615030603a3c77c13e5384fca58172456f31.
Reason for revert: wrong reason to revert, spike in ANRs was wrongly attributed.
bug: 237962896
Change-Id: I622f6ae485abd87498a5c44c4a77e69b32c739e6
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #21
May I know when will be released for testing? Thank you.
se...@google.com <se...@google.com> #22
It will be released as 2.8.1 in upcoming days.
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #23
Thank you. I am looking forward the release.
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #24
Hi, after releasing 2.8.1 to production for more than 1 week, I can confirm that this ANR is being reduced significantly.
Thank you for being responsive in this issue.
am...@gmail.com <am...@gmail.com> #25
I am facing these anr Kindly help me.
az...@gmail.com <az...@gmail.com> #26
The fix doesn't seem to work. I can see see ANRs happening, mostly on Samsung devices.
Edit: screenshot from Play Console "Crashes and ANRs" tab.
Description
Version used: 2.7
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Gallery S22 S OS
Hi. I am a sw engieer and my project is using worker.
I got ANR issue below which comes from RescheduleReceiver.
06-07 10:23:49.655 1000 2195 14874 E ActivityManager: ANR in XXX
06-07 10:23:49.655 1000 2195 14874 E ActivityManager: PID: 12162
06-07 10:23:49.655 1000 2195 14874 E ActivityManager: Reason: Broadcast of Intent { act=android.intent.action.TIME_SET flg=0x25200010 cmp=com.samsung.android.scs/androidx.work.impl.background.systemalarm.RescheduleReceiver }
From my debugging,
worker register static RescheduleReceiver in AndroidManifest.
and this receiver use BroadcastReceiver.goAsync() method.
@Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
Logger.get().debug(TAG, String.format("Received intent %s", intent));
if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= WorkManagerImpl.MIN_JOB_SCHEDULER_API_LEVEL) {
try {
WorkManagerImpl workManager = WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(context);
final PendingResult pendingResult = goAsync();
workManager.setReschedulePendingResult(pendingResult);
As described developer site,
when you use goAync() method, you must call PendingResult.finish() after work.
But in workManager.setReschedulePendingResult(pendingResult);
there is a posibility not to call PendingResult.finish() when ForceStopRunnable is not compeleted.
public void setReschedulePendingResult(
@NonNull BroadcastReceiver.PendingResult rescheduleReceiverResult) {
synchronized (sLock) {
mRescheduleReceiverResult = rescheduleReceiverResult;
if (mForceStopRunnableCompleted) {
mRescheduleReceiverResult.finish();
mRescheduleReceiverResult = null;
}
}
}
This ANR is reproducible only when the process is launched by RescheduleReceiver.
You may can test with these intent.
<action android:name="android.intent.action.BOOT_COMPLETED" />
<action android:name="android.intent.action.TIME_SET" />
<action android:name="android.intent.action.TIMEZONE_CHANGED" />
This is not a hundred percent issue but it's reproducible sometimes as timing issue.
Also Similar issues were already reported before
It means there is a problem.
ForceStopRunnable is triggered on background. It cannot guarantee that it's completed when BR handles this intent.
Please check this call stack.
WorkManagerImpl's constructor schedule ForceStopRunnable with executor and return directly.
WorkManagerImp.java
Constructor --> internalInit() --> mWorkTaskExecutor.executeOnBackgroundThread(new ForceStopRunnable(context, this));
And in here RescheduleReceiver .onReceive()
There is no logic to hold until ForceStopRunnable is completed.
This issue is not related to the main looper, it's mWorkTaskExecutor.
If an executor is busy, there is a possibility that ForceStopRunnable is delayed.
When it is delayed, mForceStopRunnableCompleted field can be false and returns onRecieve() with not finishing PendingResult.
Could you please check with this? Thanks
RescheduleReceiver.java
@Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
...
WorkManagerImpl workManager = WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(context);
final PendingResult pendingResult = goAsync();
workManager.setReschedulePendingResult(pendingResult);
...
}
WorkManagerImp.java
public void setReschedulePendingResult(
@NonNull BroadcastReceiver.PendingResult rescheduleReceiverResult) {
synchronized (sLock) {
mRescheduleReceiverResult = rescheduleReceiverResult;
if (mForceStopRunnableCompleted) {
mRescheduleReceiverResult.finish();
mRescheduleReceiverResult = null;
}
}
}