Re: pfSwitches

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Rémi Arnaud (remi++at++remi.engr.sgi.com)
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)

chris wrote:
>
>
> Hi pfPeople
>
> To eliminate the pfBuffer::merge() overhead in the Dbase
> process, I have recently been trying to manage a pfSwitch
> between two processes.
>
> A slow update process builds the scene under the
> unselected switch value while the selected switch
> value is fed to the graphics pipeline.
>
> The problem: The process working on the unselected
> subgraph causes a SegV when calling
> pfDelete().
>
> I created the process with a regular old fork().
> Indigo2 Max Impact, Irix 6.2, Performer 2.1.
>
> Any ideas? I would greatly appreciate any help.

 Only the APP process can modify the database and keep the multibuffering
 safe, that is why Performer introduces the pfBuffer datastructure.

 If the pfBuffer::merge() is a too large overhead, then just like
 texture paging where you do not want to load all the new textures
 in the hardware in a single frame, you have to split the changes
 in small chuncks.

 Regards

    _ / _ _
|_) _ ._ _ o /\ |_)|\ | /\ | || \
| \(/_| | || /--\| \| \|/--\|_||_/
                                           
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:56:07 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.