On 10/28/2010 01:54 PM, Ian Molton wrote:
Well, I like to review an implementation against a spec.
True, but then all that would prove is that I can write a spec to
match the code.
It would also allow us to check that the spec matches the requirements.
Those two steps are easier than checking that the code matches the
requirements.
The code is proof of concept. the kernel bit is pretty simple, but I'd
like to get some idea of whether the rest of the code will be accepted
given that theres not much point in having any one (or two) of these
components exist without the other.
I guess some graphics people need to be involved.
Better, but still unsatisfying. If the server is busy, the caller would
block. I guess it's expected since it's called from ->fsync(). I'm not
sure whether that's the best interface, perhaps aio_writev is better.
The caller is intended to block as the host must perform GL rendering
before allowing the guests process to continue.
Why is that? Can't we pipeline the process?
The only real bottleneck is that processes will block trying to submit
data if another process is performing rendering, but that will only be
solved when the renderer is made multithreaded. The same would happen
on a real GPU if it had only one queue too.
If you look at the host code, you can see that the data is already
buffered per-process, in a pretty sensible way. if the renderer itself
were made a seperate thread, then this problem magically disappears
(the queuing code on the host is pretty fast).
Well, this is out of my area of expertise. I don't like it, but if it's
acceptable to the gpu people, okay.
In testing, the overhead of this was pretty small anyway. Running a
few dozen glxgears and a copy of ioquake3 simultaneously on an intel
video card managed the same framerate with the same CPU utilisation,
both with the old code and the version I just posted. Contention
during rendering just isn't much of an issue.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function