Eric Anholt <[email protected]> writes: > One of keithp's assumptions has been that you have > reasonable-performance access to the texture memory for doing fallbacks.
It's actually a bit more subtle than that; what I want is to ensure that when we switch to Glamor, we don't have any performance cliffs on existing systems. The easiest way to ensure that is to make sure we can fall back to the existing code without any performance penalty. For systems which currently depend for performance on using the CPU for some rendering operations, that means continuing to use those same paths until we create replacement code that offers comparable performance. Ideally, we'll eventually write code which makes all core operations faster with the GPU than with the CPU. > I'd like to see glamor do better at rendering without fallbacks, and I > think ajax is also interested in pushing on that front. It's certainly > not there yet, though, so you need fallbacks and they need to be less > awful if we want glamor to compare to native acceleration within this > year. Ideally, fallback performance under Glamor will match fallback performance under UXA. Then, we can replace fallbacks one at a time with even faster code and keep everyone happy with the switch. -- [email protected]
pgpM4Kb3csQ8i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
