| 
      
      
      From: Mike H. <mho...@gr...> - 2004-06-25 17:59:40
      
     | 
| <snip> > >>This was one of the reasons I've been pushing for a threaded tilesortSPU >>and a threaded/non-blocking network layer. The later should just about >>double current SDP performance. Alas, this is a non-trivial thing to do >>and will cause large changes to the core of Chromium. >> > > What sort of scheme do you have in mind for tilesort ? Tilesort is going to be really tricky to thread, which is why I said it's non-trivial. It's amazing how fast we become CPU limited with the current tilesort code, even on GigE networks. Higher speed networks just exacerbate the problem. Some of it can probably be optimized (faster frustum/bounding box checking, crPackCanHoldOpcode, etc), but better overlapping with the network layer and app will probably help. For example, can we give control back to the application after a swap buffers faster by handling the application calls in one thread and the packing and network calls in another? Can we thread the bounding box/frustum checks for each display? Can we run the state tracker in a thread which handles updates and queries? etc. Most people have dual processor systems and folks are starting to build quad boxes, so why not try to better use all of the compute resources. Obviously the best performance will come from a distributed application running tilesort in an n to m configuration, but most of the "big" apps are not setup for that just yet. -Mike |