On Mit, 2014-01-15 at 19:43 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> writes: > > > But why are you putting so much effort into trying to share storage > > between GPU and CPU for bitmaps, given that SNA has apparently proved > > such sharing is not beneficial overall even on Intel GPUs? > > Did you look at how 'hard' getting GPU-acceleratable depth-1 > pixmaps was?
That doesn't cover making GPU texture memory directly accessible in Mesa, glamor etc. > > It seems more useful to spend effort on maintaining separate persistent > > CPU storage for software fallbacks, which has proven effective in EXA > > and SNA. > > That's a huge waste of time if your goal is to never touch pixmaps with > the CPU at all. The only reason you should ever be migrating pixmaps is > if you have a non-UMA machine and simply run out of GPU-accessible > storage. > > "software fallbacks" is just another name for "failure"... I totally agree with that, but the experience with EXA and SNA (and glamor) has shown that it'll take a *lot* of effort to eliminate them completely. And as long as there is even just a single software rendering path, there's bound to be some app out there hitting it and performing very badly without an appropriate fallback mechanism. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
