On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:43:18PM +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote: > > This is what I want to do too. Especially since in the nvidia case we don't > have the issue of routing vblank interrupts to user space for that. > > So, the only issue I'm worried about is the latency induced by this > approach. When the DRM does the swaps you can ensure it'll get executed > pretty fast. If X has been stuffing piles of commands into its command > buffer, it might not be so fast. What this means is that 3D might be slowed > down by 2D rendering (think especially of the case of EXA fallbacks which > will sync your fifo). In that case, ensuring a no-fallback EXA would become > relevant in achieving smooth 3D performance. But at least it solves the > issue of sluggish OpenGL window moves and resizes (/me looks at the nvidia > binary driver behaviour). > > Stephane
I likely got problem with my mail as i think my previous mail didn't get through. Anyway i am all for having X server responsible for swapping buffer. For solving a part of the above problem we might have two context (fifo) for X server: one for X drawing, one for X swapping buffer. The swap context (fifo) is a top priority things and should preempt others context (fifo). An outcome of this is that we might like a simple gpu scheduler for such case (and maybe other in the future) but obviously such scheduler will be highly hw dependent. Cheers, Jerome Glisse ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
