On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:09:56 +0000
Keith Whitwell <keith@...> wrote:
> Felix Kühling wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:23:22 +0000
> > Keith Whitwell <keith@...> wrote:
> >>I've cleaned up the WaitForFrameCompletion function a bit & committed. The
> >>logic is slightly different, but a lot easier to read/understand, I think.
> > Ok, I just think that the name rmesa->irqsEmitted is now a bit
> > misleading (can't think of a better one, though).
> Agreed, I can't either.
> > And you removed the
> > delay loop. I remember reading a comment like "don't hammer the bus" in
> > the old code. And by removing the delay loop you also eliminated the
> > cause for the IRQ/busy ping ponging. So the irqsEmitted magic should be
> > no longer necessary.
> The delay loop is eliminated by modern versions of gcc anyway. The
> irqsEmitted magic is still necessary to avoid the (first) busywait, which I'd
> like to do. It basically says: "If I have to emit an irq for this frame,
> then don't try to do without them for at least 9 more frames". This should
> stop the pingponging in all but very marginal situations, and then it won't be
> more than 1 pingpong per 10 frames.
> > Finally, if do_irqs is disabled you alsways use usleeps. But I assume
> > it's your intention to never do real busy waiting.
> No - there's an 'if (rmesa->do_usleeps)' protecting all relevent uses of
> usleep, I think.
You're right, my fault. Then I guess we can officially close this thread
__\|/__ ___ ___ ___
__Tschüß_______\_6 6_/___/__ \___/__ \___/___\___You can do anything,___
_____Felix_______\Ä/\ \_____\ \_____\ \______U___just not everything____
fxkuehl@... >o<__/ \___/ \___/ at the same time!