[Xorg] Chromium vs GLX protocol

[Adam Jackson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 29 July 2004 12:39, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:05:59 -0400, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> > Heh.  It won't be hardware-accelerated until we ditch GLcore for *_dri.so
> > in the server.  DMX just uses whatever indirect rendering path the server
> > provides.  There's a reason this is on my todo list ;)
>
> That's glxproxy.  dmx plus chromium can use direct rendering as I recall.

As I understand it, Chromium redirects all the GL protocol among their own 
processes, which then act as normal X clients and can therefore do direct 
rendering.  This is not the model I had in mind; I'd much prefer to see 
accelerated indirect rendering, because then I can just point Xdmx :2 at my 
two DRI-capable X servers and treat the Xdmx as my only X server, no matter 
what, no funky libGL redirection tricks, no extra client/server pairs to set 
up.

It might then be interesting to teach the X server to speak the Chromium 
protocol.  But if we're aiming for accelerated indirect rendering, and our 
options are Chromium or replacing GLcore, then I for one want to see GLcore 
dead and buried.  That way we give accelerated indirect rendering to every 
GLX client on the planet with no additional software on the client side.   
Particularly if, as Brian says, the performance gain from switching from the 
GLX to Chromium protocols is "quite modest".

- - ajax
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBCTJOW4otUKDs0NMRAokzAKCavvWo3WbKfr6hFpCdPJVHSS3+iQCfVfx9
0KNmWh7SzggMZJkrqsQ7n6g=
=913v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----