Xegl lives!
Michel Dänzer
michel at daenzer.net
Wed May 25 11:57:47 PDT 2005
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 11:12 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
> >From all I've seen, there are two major issues left in GL based
> solutions:
>
> a) memory management. With composite, we'll pay a heavy price for not
> having pixels in the right place in the right time, and be putting major
> pressure on off screen memory. We have no experience here, and I expect
> we're going to need substantial experimentation to "get it right".
> b) interactivity: a GL program can cause the GPU to stay busy for
> extended periods. How do we address this issue?
>
> We must have solutions for both a) and b) to successfully make a
> transition to GL based servers.
I basically agree with the rest of your post, but b) here isn't new
compared to a non-GL server, so I don't think it's a requirement for the
transition.
(On second thought, a) only seems crucial for compositing, in which case
it applies to non-GL servers as well, and I suspect some GL
implementations might actually already be better for that than the
non-GL alternatives we have, but we'll see)
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
More information about the xorg
mailing list