[Xorg] Chromium vs GLX protocol
alexdeucher at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 11:33:37 PDT 2004
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:22:22 -0400, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thursday 29 July 2004 12:39, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:05:59 -0400, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> > > Heh. It won't be hardware-accelerated until we ditch GLcore for *_dri.so
> > > in the server. DMX just uses whatever indirect rendering path the server
> > > provides. There's a reason this is on my todo list ;)
> > That's glxproxy. dmx plus chromium can use direct rendering as I recall.
> As I understand it, Chromium redirects all the GL protocol among their own
> processes, which then act as normal X clients and can therefore do direct
> rendering. This is not the model I had in mind; I'd much prefer to see
> accelerated indirect rendering, because then I can just point Xdmx :2 at my
> two DRI-capable X servers and treat the Xdmx as my only X server, no matter
> what, no funky libGL redirection tricks, no extra client/server pairs to set
I agree with you 100%. I was just making a note of the difference.
> It might then be interesting to teach the X server to speak the Chromium
> protocol. But if we're aiming for accelerated indirect rendering, and our
> options are Chromium or replacing GLcore, then I for one want to see GLcore
> dead and buried. That way we give accelerated indirect rendering to every
> GLX client on the planet with no additional software on the client side.
> Particularly if, as Brian says, the performance gain from switching from the
> GLX to Chromium protocols is "quite modest".
> - - ajax
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the xorg