Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:56:04 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [nephtes@openface.ca: [Xmame] Use of usleep() with -sleepidle] Message-ID: <20021205085604.GB56010@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <3DEE58C6.19ACF59C@mindspring.com> References: <20021202151816.GJ83264@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20021202114019.R31106-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20021204113154.GA205@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <3DEE4418.868B4936@mindspring.com> <20021204191125.GG52541@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <3DEE58C6.19ACF59C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:34:30AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Stijn Hoop wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:06:16AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Actually, for the case you are talking about, your emulator should > > > be using aggregate instead of discrete timeouts, and you would not > > > be having a problem. It's not useful to do 100 1ms timeouts to > > > achieve a 100ms timeout, when you can ask for a single 100ms > > > timeout. I would count this as a bug in your emulator. > >=20 > > Yes, I would count it as a bug in any application in fact. But these > > benchmarks are used to determine which of the various _sleep functions > > would be appropriate to use in the idle loop of the emulator while > > not dropping too many frames. Sleeping for a minimum of 10 ms is a > > lot if you want to achieve a steady 60 frames / second. >=20 > It's a flawed benchmark. I'd argue it isn't flawed for the measuring it is supposed to do - namely the overhead for the various _sleep functions. Care to tell me why it is flawed according to you? > I would argue that that application was special purpose, as well. Yes it most certainly is. > The hardclock rate gets boosted in the kernel under certain usage > conditions, among them being using the PC speaker driver. I > believe there is an interface available that you could abuse to > raise it the same way. Far be it for sotware to know about the > hardware it's running on, though... 8-). That sounds.... gross... :) --Stijn --=20 Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply. --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE97xSkY3r/tLQmfWcRAnR8AJ9NUd51LE4KPLEhNRV8RjoYqSMpWgCfYLCV /5utJNeU2fCCBklxrX25dHg= =TYy3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021205085604.GB56010>