On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:22 AM, utkarsh shukla <utk.shukla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry from my side if you felt something. I did not mean to hurt you. > Obviously you must be better than me. It's okay, no harm taken. :) > Well by the minimap I mean you create a mapping of what part of buffer data > is where, wether it is processed in CPU or in GPU or over the network. By > this way You reduce the tranfer of data. Basically in GPU the costliest > thing is the Data transfer than the processing. > I dont feel such thing is used frequently but if you want to make a unified > memory architechture then it would be much better. This thing will easily > fit into the GEGL api. I see. This minimap thing greatly interests me. I have been searching through Google for anything related to the minimaps you were talking about, but to no avail. All the results seem to refer to game minimaps only. Do you have, by any chance, some helpful references for them? Actually, it's kinda funny that this appeared in our conversation. Richard T. and I, in a different conversation, were just talking about tile/rectangle-level parallelization. Actually, as it currently stands, GEGL doesn't seem to support concurrent operations on different tiles/rectangles. Reading through the source, especially through GeglBuffer's source, I was made to assume that the buffer doesn't really need to execute different operations on tiles/rectangles in different devices (e.g. GPUs, CPUs, etc.) because support for such isn't really there in the sources yet. What I had in mind for GPU-support was to store all cached tiles in GPU memory, relying in the cache to actually minimize CPU to GPU transfers (and vice versa). I wasn't able to think of a setup wherein different tiles could be stored in and processed by different devices. Perhaps, I could better explain this if you understand GEGL's buffer architecture. I'm going to post another article for that, but had originally planned to include some of my proposed changes for GPU-support. I'm going to post the article anyway without my proposed changes. I think it might help. Setting all that aside, I still don't know if introducing tile/rectangle-level parallelization is something that I could take on. Minimaps are indeed interesting, If my basic understanding of them is correct. But I would have to set that aside as of now.. Unless someone steps-up to implement them? :) Then maybe we could implement both tile/rectangle-level and pixel-level parallelization all at the same time... Sweetness. :) Kind regards, Daerd _______________________________________________ Gegl-developer mailing list Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
