Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel's Gallium3D Driver Is Running Much Faster Than Their Current OpenGL Linux Driver With Mesa 19.3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Veerappan
    replied
    Originally posted by oleid View Post

    This news perfectly shows, that a shared effort - and nothing else are gallium drivers - benefits the ecosystem as a whole. Hopefully in future Intel contributes more to gallium and the other drivers will profit from their work as well.
    Agreed. The Intel team hung onto their classic driver for a long time because they knew it and they didn't necessarily believe that the work to transition to gallium was worth the time they'd spend doing it (and the bugs they'd create on the way). AMD (and VMWare/Collabora/Valve/others) did a lot of work to improve gallium and its various state trackers. The work that was done to make the radeon drivers better has helped Intel to transition to a performant gallium-based driver, and now the work that Intel does to improve the gallium infrastructure can help AMD/nouveau/freedreno/vc4/vc5/etnaviv/panfrost/etc as well (and we can hopefully reduce duplication of effort).

    I suspect that migrating the classic intel driver over to their nir-based compiler and using it in their Vulkan driver also forced some modularization that made this transition a bit easier as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ehansin
    replied
    Thanks GrayShade

    In my case, neither dmenu nor Firefox would launch, and both are X dependent programs (i.e. the way I launched Firefox it needed X, and dmenu is exclusively X.) My speculation was that they needed XWayland, which still didn't do it, then adding in xf86-video-intel did the trick. Not that it matters, it just got me thinking what I wanted to better understand what worked where.

    Here is kind of my point, and I may be off - it would be cool if in the future in a more pure Wayland setup that only Mesa was needed (assuming supported hardware) no matter the GPU manufacturer. But in all honesty, it isn't too big of a deal either way. Anyway, I'm glad to see the Wayland ecosystem progress.


    Just wanted to add this:



    Maybe this is a way to run X (XWayland) apps with the need for any vendor/chipset specific DDX 2D drivers. Hmm...
    Last edited by ehansin; 16 September 2019, 12:16 PM. Reason: Added the X Glamor link

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
    Congrats to the Iris team, and all the devs at Intel on this. [...]

    While I'm generally an AMD guy at home, I can recognize that getting to the performance and feature level shown today took a lot of work and dedication.

    Well done.
    This news perfectly shows, that a shared effort - and nothing else are gallium drivers - benefits the ecosystem as a whole. Hopefully in future Intel contributes more to gallium and the other drivers will profit from their work as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrayShade
    replied
    Originally posted by ehansin View Post
    Thanks for response cb88 !



    Two things, Sway + Alacritty terminal worked fine before installing "xorg-server-xwayland" (I assume a more streamlined install than full "xorg-server" since I will only be using X in Wayland at this point) and "xf86-video-intel" (according to the Arch wiki link above, 'the DDX driver (which provides 2D acceleration in Xorg)'.)

    Because I just wanted to get running, I used the default menu as per the Sway config file of "dmenu" which requires X, and my Firefox if launched without setting the correct env variable, requires X as well by default. These two things, for example, would not launch until I installed XWayland and the XF86 DDX drivers. So it got me thinking. I'm kinda seeing that pure Wayland can run off of whatever drivers Mesa provides, that the XF86 drivers are not needed in a pure Wayland situation. That is what I am trying to clarify if that is always the case. I don't mind pulling in XWayland and XF86 drivers, just a curiosity how things would work in pure Wayland.
    I'm using Gnome on Wayland on Arch without any Xorg DDX driver -- I don't even have one installed (I thought there was an xf86-video-modesetting, but can't find it). Both Gnome on Wayland and Gnome on Xorg work for me, but I never tried Sway. In which way did Xwayland fail for you without xf86-video-intel?

    I think there's a difference between Xwayland and the DDX drivers. You shouldn't try to avoid the first one. There are plenty of apps that can't (GTK 2, Qt 4) or won't use Wayland (Qt5 IIRC). For Firefox I'm using the environment variable and it's fine. Gnome also used to require Xwayland. Supposedly 3.34 requires Xwayland "less", but it still seems to get started, so whatever.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    That's some good progress. It's been a while since we've seen Windows tests but Intel's drivers have traditionally always been slightly behind in just about everything. With Gallium3D, it might just outperform Windows. Since Michael tends to be limited on how often he can do Windows tests, I'd suggest the Windows comparison should be held off until after the memory situation is cleared up.

    Leave a comment:


  • jacob
    replied
    We should get this in Ubuntu 20.04 then.

    Leave a comment:


  • ehansin
    replied
    Thanks for response cb88 !

    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    I think the reason your specific setup didn't work is Arch still has some things depending on xorg... so it isn't a pure wayland desktop but is running somethings via xwayland.
    Two things, Sway + Alacritty terminal worked fine before installing "xorg-server-xwayland" (I assume a more streamlined install than full "xorg-server" since I will only be using X in Wayland at this point) and "xf86-video-intel" (according to the Arch wiki link above, 'the DDX driver (which provides 2D acceleration in Xorg)'.)

    Because I just wanted to get running, I used the default menu as per the Sway config file of "dmenu" which requires X, and my Firefox if launched without setting the correct env variable, requires X as well by default. These two things, for example, would not launch until I installed XWayland and the XF86 DDX drivers. So it got me thinking. I'm kinda seeing that pure Wayland can run off of whatever drivers Mesa provides, that the XF86 drivers are not needed in a pure Wayland situation. That is what I am trying to clarify if that is always the case. I don't mind pulling in XWayland and XF86 drivers, just a curiosity how things would work in pure Wayland.

    Leave a comment:


  • cb88
    replied
    Originally posted by ehansin View Post
    I was wondering if someone here in the know could help me understand something better. Given the graphics coverage and understanding on this site, I am sure someone has this dialed in.

    I recently did a clean Arch install, very minimal. The idea was to keep things as simple as possible to learn from, etc. After my basic base install, I installed sway, the Sway window manager. It pulled in Mesa, and at that point I could launch Sway direct from the command line. Where there were issues were with any programs that needed an X server. So keeping with my learning here, I installed just "xorg-server-xwayland" to get the XWayland X server. Things still didn't work, so I then installed "xf86-video-intel", then bam was good to go.

    I guess my question is, when running just Wayland stuff, is Mesa all that is needed for GPU specific drivers (meaning for open source drivers for Intel, AMD, etc.)? Are the GPU vendor-specific drivers (i.e. "xf86-video-xyz") only needed for an X server? Just curious how this all worked. Thanks to anyone who can help me better understand this.
    Wayland uses almost the entirety of the Xorg stack except for the X server, extensions to that. That means you need the Kernel DRM drivers, + mesa dri drivers + wayland + x server for running xwayland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylan...r_protocol.svg

    I think the reason your specific setup didn't work is Arch still has some things depending on xorg... so it isn't a pure wayland desktop but is running somethings via xwayland.

    Leave a comment:


  • ehansin
    replied
    I get a sense, these links may given me some clarity on the matter:





    Leave a comment:


  • ehansin
    replied
    I was wondering if someone here in the know could help me understand something better. Given the graphics coverage and understanding on this site, I am sure someone has this dialed in.

    I recently did a clean Arch install, very minimal. The idea was to keep things as simple as possible to learn from, etc. After my basic base install, I installed sway, the Sway window manager. It pulled in Mesa, and at that point I could launch Sway direct from the command line. Where there were issues were with any programs that needed an X server. So keeping with my learning here, I installed just "xorg-server-xwayland" to get the XWayland X server. Things still didn't work, so I then installed "xf86-video-intel", then bam was good to go.

    I guess my question is, when running just Wayland stuff, is Mesa all that is needed for GPU specific drivers (meaning for open source drivers for Intel, AMD, etc.)? Are the GPU vendor-specific drivers (i.e. "xf86-video-xyz") only needed for an X server? Just curious how this all worked. Thanks to anyone who can help me better understand this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X