nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Linux (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Xegl and Nvidia (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=57043)

NoFate 09-23-05 02:49 AM

Xegl and Nvidia
 
Hi everyone.
I think this question intend for nvidia developers/manager. I want to find out are you planning to create drivers for this server?

gnumdk 02-22-06 06:56 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Same question for me!!!

Xgl is a good technologie preview, but the future is Xegl and now, we have no way to test it as nvidia drivers doesn't support EGL :(

Thanx for all ;)

d4rk74m4 02-22-06 08:02 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Nvidia have some convincing arguments against Xgl.. I agree with some of them too :)

http://download.nvidia.com/developer...-framework.pdf

In any case, Xegl is most unmaintained currently :)

krionius 02-22-06 09:24 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by d4rk74m4
Nvidia have some convincing arguments against Xgl.. I agree with some of them too :)

http://download.nvidia.com/developer...-framework.pdf

In any case, Xegl is most unmaintained currently :)

This paper is rather interesting. But composite and such does not equal XGL concept AFAIK, and this paper is about such things. This is now about real 3D not just beautified 2D. How does these two bit different things connect now? :)

fate 02-22-06 10:17 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
lol -- "NoFate" vs. Fate, sorry -- I just noticed the quirky opposite aliases. :)

(nana2)

While I don't mean to hijack a thread, I just wanted to add the end-user support over this technology (xegl, xgl) for the desktop has been nothing short of amazing. Over on Ubuntu's forums (ubuntuforums.org), you can't read through the Dapper Drake development forum without having a thread on XGL that people have posted to a gazillion times and viewed more than that (in the 300,000s+ last I checked).

It's.. amazing to watch the explosion of interest in this. I'd always heard about 3D acceleration for a linux desktop but never to such a scale since a week or two ago. I'm honestly and truly impressed. No matter what wins out in the end, the competition over it looks to be fierce and furious. I'm excited to see what this brings up.

elanthis 02-22-06 12:11 PM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by krionius
This paper is rather interesting. But composite and such does not equal XGL concept AFAIK, and this paper is about such things. This is now about real 3D not just beautified 2D. How does these two bit different things connect now? :)

The paper is all about how you do 2D on top of 3D. That's what XGL is all about, too - rendering all of the 2D X drawing commands using the 3D hardware.

XGL manages to make those effecets possible by forcing all 3D to be done indirectly; that is, the clients no longer directly talk to the hardware, but instead talk to the X server that talks to the hardware. That's necessary to make a composite manager that uses 3D work.

The work done by IBM, X.org, and Red Hat on the accelerated indirect rendering branch of X.org allowed the current X.org server to support both direct and indirect hardware accelerated rendering. And it does it with much less impact on the X server code, and doesn't require building an entire new set of drivers from scratch like Xegl will.

krionius 02-23-06 05:44 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
I see. So I should imagine XGL as an extension like Composite? So it is an extension. That sounds better. I would do it like that just like NVidia says it will do. If I want to use it, I have to add this extension only. I will try it this weekend using gentoo's wiki page, I hope. :)

Lithorus 02-23-06 10:11 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by krionius
I see. So I should imagine XGL as an extension like Composite? So it is an extension. That sounds better. I would do it like that just like NVidia says it will do. If I want to use it, I have to add this extension only. I will try it this weekend using gentoo's wiki page, I hope. :)

No, the issue is that XGL is NOT an extension like aiglx is. XGL is a whole new X server running on top of another X server capable of doing OpenGL.

enoch 02-23-06 10:13 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by elanthis
The paper is all about how you do 2D on top of 3D. That's what XGL is all about, too - rendering all of the 2D X drawing commands using the 3D hardware.

XGL manages to make those effecets possible by forcing all 3D to be done indirectly; that is, the clients no longer directly talk to the hardware, but instead talk to the X server that talks to the hardware. That's necessary to make a composite manager that uses 3D work.

The work done by IBM, X.org, and Red Hat on the accelerated indirect rendering branch of X.org allowed the current X.org server to support both direct and indirect hardware accelerated rendering. And it does it with much less impact on the X server code, and doesn't require building an entire new set of drivers from scratch like Xegl will.

Allowing direct rendering isn't necessarily a good thing. Do you think it was a great feature that older operating systems like MacOS would allow you to write directly to memory rather than through a protected memory manager?

The X server code for XGL is already written, so it's not like this is a huge problem. Finally, at least on the ATI side, the OpenGL portion of the linux drivers is based off the same code in the windows drivers. I assume nVidias drivers are built similarly. Going forward, it is the opengl portion of the drivers that really matter, and it's not like they would be rewriting the Xegl drivers from scratch.

Mark

elanthis 02-23-06 10:28 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Do you think it was a great feature that older operating systems like MacOS would allow you to write directly to memory rather than through a protected memory manager?
That's a completely inaccurate comparison, because the whole purpose of the DRM and DRI is to provide protection to applications' video memory and enforce cooperative use of the GPU without adding any unnecessary protocol encoding/decoding and dispatch like indirect rendering requires.

The whole reason that AIGLX is so important is because indirect rendering is required for an OpenGL-based composite manager: with direct rendering, the composite manager cannot access the video memory that the other applications' windows are rendered into. By putting all of the actual hardware interaction in the X server, the X server can use it's "root"-like video memory privileges to do the compositing. The compositing manager's job is simply to tell the X server *how* to composite things, but not to actually perform the composite operations themselves, because it doesn't have the video memory access permissions to do the compositing. Only the X server does.

Spyke 02-23-06 11:56 AM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
They need to combine the Xgl server and the X server, rather then nest them, and maintain all driver compatibility in the process. Its annoying that the Xgl server cannot take advantage of nvidia-settings or any other special settings you have in xorg.conf.

krionius 02-23-06 12:49 PM

Re: Xegl and Nvidia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithorus
No, the issue is that XGL is NOT an extension like aiglx is. XGL is a whole new X server running on top of another X server capable of doing OpenGL.

In that case my first thought was right, just as I wrote. The paper and XGL has not much to do with each other in the meaning of being nested and not being an extension. That's real 3D eating the ancestor X's resources. Weird! :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.