From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 4 11:36: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CB037B401 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:36:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D13B43EB2 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:36:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0345.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.90] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18JfJP-0006uI-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:35:59 -0800 Message-ID: <3DEE58C6.19ACF59C@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:34:30 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stijn Hoop Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [nephtes@openface.ca: [Xmame] Use of usleep() with -sleepidle] 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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