On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:51:17 -0400 Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: >> Dennis Schridde schreef: >> > Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: >> >> Dennis Schridde schreef: >> >>> Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >>>> Why was this removed? >> >>>> >> >>>> " SDL_Delay(20); //Added to prevent busy loop, and get CPU >time >> >>>> back when paused! " >> >>>> >> >>>> WZ eats all CPU time now, even when paused? >> >>> >> >>> Of course not... >> >>> We still have the SDL_framerateDelay... >> >> >> >> Which does not call SDL_Delay if we don't reach our requested >frame >> >> rate, and that in turn results in CPU hogging. Apart from >that I believe >> >> that SDL_framerateDelay doesn't get called in the menus. So I >think we >> >> at least need an explicit SDL_Delay(1) call, maybe only if >> >> SDL_framerateDelay didn't call SDL_Delay. >> > >> > I didn't recognize any sideeffects, but it might be possible >that we now >> > eat the CPU in the menu or on slow computers. Maybe we should >setup a >> > minimum-delay for sdl-framerate. >> > SDL_Delay(1) wont work as expected afaik, since the minimum >tick >> > precission guaranteed by SDL is 10ms. >> >> Almost correct, that is the precision of the kernel's CPU >scheduler >> although I believe most Linux versions 2.6 have a time slice of >1 msec. >> Apart from that an SDL_Delay(1) call is just an explicit call to >yield >> the current process so the kernel can use the remaining CPU time >and >> divide it among other processes. >> >> Also SDL_Delay guarantees nothing about the amount of time that >will be >> waited, only that it will be "at least" the time you specify. So >a call >> like SDL_Delay(20) could very well result in losing CPU for 750 >ms (if >> the OS's scheduler decided so). >Doesn't the scheduler distribute CPU time between all applications >anyway? >I don't think we can force it to give us all the CPU. >Currently we only request as much as to keep a certain framerate. >Which hits >the limits on slow PCs, what I don't think is bad (since why would >we like to >drop the fps even more). >The only reason we inserted the delay originaly, was because eg. >laptop users >don't need 100fps, but would like to keep their CPU idle instead. >They can >lower the framerate down to 1fps if they want, and that will be >exactly what >they get. No more, maybe less. > >So currently the real only issue is that there is no delay in the >mainmenu. >
So then why remove it? It did not hurt anything correct? If game pause, it should take up 0 CPU time. I also wonders how vsynch plays with the delays? Does matter at all if on/off? -- Click here for free information on consolidating your debt. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1QPxS940UplQ6PnAtbi0K8ck6N/ _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
