On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:15:19 +0000 José Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote: [snip] > I think that one thing that must be thought is whether the parallelism > should be in the pipeline stages or in the pipeline data, i.e., if we > should partition a stage for each thread (as you're suggesting), or if > there is enough data running through the pipeline making it worth to > have to a whole pipeline for each thread, each processing a part of the > primitives. I just came back from lunch with my brain back online ;-). Now I understand what you're saying. I think my approach is much simpler to implement. I don't have to worry about how to compose the final image from images generated by subsets of the vertex data. And even before that there would be more problems if we wanted to render to several parallel back buffers at the same time using the same hardware. > The later is the approach taken e.g., in chromium > http://chromium.sourceforge.net , but actually I don't know if for any > application besides scientific visualization a pipeline handles so many > primitives at a time. For applications such as games, state changes (like > texture changes) seem to happen too often for that. Agreed. To me it sounds like chromium splits the vertex data on a frame level. We're talking about much smaller units here. [snip] Felix __\|/__ ___ ___ ___ __Tschüß_______\_6 6_/___/__ \___/__ \___/___\___You can do anything,___ _____Felix_______\Ä/\ \_____\ \_____\ \______U___just not everything____ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >o<__/ \___/ \___/ at the same time! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0002en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
