[Xorg] Chromium vs GLX protocol

[Alex Deucher]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:22:22 -0400, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> -----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.

I agree with you 100%.  I was just making a note of the difference.

> 
> 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-----
>