I realise that this is not a question strictly related to development
of linux, but there have been changes related to sleep granularity
lately, and I'm assuming these changes are made with an idea of how
sleep functions are expected to be used from user space. Since some of
these changes have made my situation worse (although the recent
development wrt high-res timers and dynamic tick looks promising), I'd
like to know if situations like mine are accounted for in the plans
behind such changes, or if I'm just relying on the wrong things here,
and how the kernel wants a user space app to behave wrt this.
I'm developing a game console emulator. This needs to be synced to the
host's time at regular intervals, eg. 70224 emulated cycles pr
~16.7427 ms. This should preferably happen once every frame, so that
the next frame lasts as long as the previous, giving non-choppy
display. At the same time I need to resample the emulated sound to the
host's sample rate, and stream it to the sound card. This means that
if I fail to consistently keep within these limits I will get choppy
display, and fluctuating pitch (or buffer underruns depending on how I
resample). One way to keep within these limits is to busy-wait, but
that seems like a kind of obnoxious way for an application to behave,
not to mention that it will drain an eventual battery (and probably
cause global warming, kill kittens etc.). So, I would like to give
away as much cpu time as possible keeping within these limits.
If I have access to waitForVblank()-like functions I could supposedly
resample the emulated video to the host's frame rate and use this.
Unfortunately I often don't have that possibility, besides resampling
frame rate in real time can be very resource intensive (and give
motion blurry visuals).
Afaik, if I were to sync by means of sound hardware needing more
samples, I wouldn't be able keep a consistent frame rate. Unless I can
set a weird buffer size, use a static resampling ratio, and
approximate the emulated system's speed slightly. If there are more
sophisticated ways to sync through sound hardware, that may be a
complete solution (for my specific case).
Without root-privilegies, that leaves general purpose sleep functions
like nanosleep afaik. The problem is that the granularity of these
seems very unpredictable, and if I am to use a lowest common
denominator I'd only be able to sleep like 10 ms pr 16.7 ms on fast
systems, and not at all on not so fast systems. So, I'd like to know
what the "correct" way to handle this kind of situation is, if any,
from a kernel perspective. Is the only sensible thing to do to give a
user settable preference, deciding on a compromise default (or one
that says "screw you old kernels")?
Please keep me CC'd if you reply to this thread.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]