On 3/22/2012 7:43 AM, Kornél Pál wrote:
On 3/22/2012 6:00 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Joey Yandle<dra...@dancingdragon.be> wrote:
It's been explained several times already that any approach to share data
between wineserver and clients is going to be rejected.
I think this is the reason that timers in shared_user_data are not being
updated. I also think that updating timers in every client process in
every 15.6 ms is a lot of overhead.
Another approach could be no to allocate that address and provide up to
date data in an signal/exception handler. This is a more complex
approach and not sure whether possible in user mode. And of course would
defeat the purpose using shared memory for high performance.
A bit better approach was to mark that page PAGE_GUARD. Then wine could
get an indication that it needs to be updated. Frequent accesses were
not impacted because PAGE_GUARD could be reset by an APC some time later.
wine in this case should not use this structure for performance reasons.
I'm not sure however that this would solve Joey's problem since he
mentioned that APCs were not accurate enough.
Thanks.
Kornel
