[PATCH 0/4] fb support for 8bpp bitmaps
Keith Packard
keithp at keithp.com
Wed Jan 15 19:43:40 PST 2014
Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> 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?
fb.h | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
fbbltone.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
fbcopy.c | 3 +
fbfill.c | 2 -
fbgc.c | 10 ++++-
fbglyph.c | 2 -
fbimage.c | 33 ++++++++++++++---
fbpixmap.c | 8 +++-
fbpush.c | 12 ++++--
fbscreen.c | 9 ++++
fbstipple.c | 10 +++--
wfbrename.h | 1
12 files changed, 204 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
If that gets us on the path to using 8bpp for bitmaps so that we can
draw them with the GPU, that seems like a win to me. Again, the goal is
to incrementally move to a model where the GPU can draw everything, but
move in a way where performance compared to the current server is
comparable through the whole process.
> 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"...
--
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20140115/89f650b9/attachment.pgp>
More information about the xorg-devel
mailing list