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. > > > > 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'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 -- Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.
msg38498/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
