Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:34:30 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [nephtes@openface.ca: [Xmame] Use of usleep() with -sleepidle] Message-ID: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > 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. It's a flawed benchmark. I would argue that that application was special purpose, as well. 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-). -- Terry 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?3DEE58C6.19ACF59C>