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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
