On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:33:56 +0100 (CET) Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2012-10-24 13:51, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > >>A few folks around me, and myself included, have pondered... > >> > >>It would seem that wayland and its possible compositors all require > >>3D support, which may require, if no accelerating GPU is installed, > >>the use of software rendering when doing purely "2D workloads", > >>such as libreoffice - xterms - and simple web page browsing,[...] > > > >what issues do you have in mind, exactly? That Wayland is not at all > >usable without a performant GPU (software GL considered too slow or > >power-hungry)? > > That Wayland may be slower than what we have today, especially in > cases with sufficiently dumb framebuffers. > For example, within an Xvnc session, `mplayer -vo gl` takes up so > much more CPU time than `mplayer -vo x11`. Clearly that is due to > software GL rendering, got no problem with that. But I can switch to > -vo x11 if I want. With Wayland/Weston, I do not see any such > "disable GL" command line option. The pixman renderer may resolve > that worry.. Right, I am confident it will. There will still be the overhead of compositing, as clients cannot render directly to the (shadow) framebuffer, except maybe the compositor's shadow buffer can be bypassed for a fullscreen application. > >A Pixman-based software renderer for Weston has been talked about in > >passing several times, that it would be good to have. No-one just got > >around to it yet, AFAIK. It could also allow to run Weston on legacy > >(dumb) framebuffers. The GLESv2 renderer has been somewhat separated > >from the compositor core, but is not a clean cut yet. The renderer separation has advanced quite much since that time. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
