On 06/02/17 15:13 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote: > There has been a lot of discussions for the last few years about glvnd on > the mesa-devel list and at XDC. This is not Fedora specific technology, but > a change in how Mesa will work everywhere and thus there has not been a lot > of discussions about it here on Fedora-devel. But that is true for most stuff, > we do not discuss major new kernel features here that much either as one example. I don't think that's a fair point. If there was an artificial intermediate level put in front of libc that would only be to solve issues with some hardware component, and it would be forcibly implanted into Fedora unnecessarily for all audience, then it would be comparable. But even then, I doubt it would happen without questioning such aspects. Forcing glvnd for all is Fedora specific, as far as I can tell. -- Jan > Christian > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jan Pokorný" <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> >> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 2:32:35 PM >> Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25 >> >> On 06/02/17 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> libglvnd is a solution for this it is a vendor neutral >>>> implementation of libGL.so.1 which acts as a dispatcher >>>> to one or more glvnd enabled libGL implementations >>>> installed on the systems. >>> >>> By doing so, it decreases performance for all the users of the Mesa >>> drivers by adding an unnecessary layer of indirection. I do not see >>> performance being addressed at all in any of your communication, did >>> you even try to measure the impact of the added indirection layer? >> >> These are the thoughts that crossed my mind as well, I'll admit. >> >> Do we have any sort of measurements or at least the related theoretical >> backgrounds, such as "indirection will impose a small slowdown, but >> only at the very initial phase of execution till all the necessary >> symbols are resolved, no effect since then"? Is it in fact worse? >> >> The fact there was no serious discussion about the change is rather >> unsettling, IMHO. >> >> -- >> Jan (Poki) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Jan (Poki)
Attachment:
pgpS3rVW3BxB5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
