Fwd: Indirect GLX still broken

[Ilya Anfimov]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 06:02:07AM +0100, Steve Dodd wrote:
>    On 12 June 2018 at 10:45, Ilya Anfimov <ilan at tzirechnoy.com> wrote:
> 
>      The GLX pathway had too many data copy-ing, that process wass 
> 
>      too CPU-based and sycnhronous, also it had some  optimisations 
> 
>        of  packing  and pipelining drawcalls in one write() syscall, [..]
> 
>    I was thinking about this .. what happened to the AIGLX pathways that were
>    originally added in mainly for compositing window managers? Is that all
>    now done directly using DRI2 for local clients?

 It  worked  unitl  GLX  was  removed. Probably, minor fixing GLX
would also enable AIGLX, AFAIK code was not removed.

 However, compositing window managers had relatively small number
of  drawcalls  (somtehing like O(number of windows)), mostly tex-
turing of large surfaces, based on something already in X  server
memory.

 glx was not a show-stopper for them. Texturing in software, how-
ever, was -- as it overpaints a screen several  times,  therefore
AIGLX acceleration with simple forwarding was an advancement.

>    Still intrigued by VirtualGL and it's making me try to understand current
>    X architecture better. I didn't realise quite how complicated it had got.
>    S.