[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] virtualGraphicCards
Mark Williamson wrote: The problem with framebuffers is that you lose higher level primatives (like blitting, rect fills, moves). Modern remote display protocols (NX, VNC) are optimized to take advantage of these higher level primatives.X is not the center of this world. If it is, something is wrong. I think VESA, VGA, other (better, newer) protocols are way better. They are more generic, and thus *can* be supported by other Operating Systems. Despite that X is on another "layer" (layer as in OSI, just for graphics cards ;-))...The intention isn't to limit ourselves to using X. The plan would be to define the "Xen video protocol" then write a driver to make X talk it. Anyone else could port their system to talk to it too.I'd be inclined to implement the Xen video device in the guest kernel, then get X to use that (as it can for existing framebuffer drivers). The thing that really gets you is that modern environments draw software cursors a lot. Paying a round trip for every cursor movement makes the mouse visibly laggy. Even qemu has this problem (when you export it's display over VNC) as the cirrus hardware cursor is not often used (as it's only black and white and fixed size). I'm becoming fonder of the idea of virtualizing at a much higher level (perhaps even at the OpenGL level). I'm not sure how we bridge this effectively to fully virtualized domains either. Regards, Anthony Liguori Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |