SDL_GetScheduleSize ?1?!

SDL Development
1

Hello !

Is it possible to add a function to SDL
SDL_GetScheduleSize ? Under vanilla Win32 and Linux
it is 10 ms. Even when it would be slow, people
just save the Nr at the beginning of their programm
in one special variable, they use all the time.

CU

2

Nope. Windows 2000, Windows XP and the Linux 2.6 kernel have fine-
grained scheduling. They’ll do 1ms sleeps without busy looping.On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:53:45PM +0100, Torsten Giebl wrote:

Under vanilla Win32 and Linux it is 10 ms.

–
Glenn Maynard

3

Hello !

Nope. Windows 2000, Windows XP and the Linux 2.6 kernel have fine-
grained scheduling. They’ll do 1ms sleeps without busy looping.

But is it possible to get the actual size without
including the Kernel Sources :-???

CU

4

maybe a bunch of #ifdef’s?> ----- Original Message -----

From: wizard@synolution.com (Torsten Giebl)
To:
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL_GetScheduleSize ?1?!

Hello !

Nope. Windows 2000, Windows XP and the Linux 2.6 kernel have fine-
grained scheduling. They’ll do 1ms sleeps without busy looping.

But is it possible to get the actual size without
including the Kernel Sources :-???

CU

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

5

The kernel source isn’t going to get you the scheduling resolution. Binaries
aren’t always going to be run on the same kernel they were compiled with.

I don’t know what you’re doing that you want the scheduling resolution
for. I adjust sound writeahead based on it: I call uname(), and use a
small writeahead for 2.6 kernels (1ms sched) and a big one for 2.6
kernels (10ms sched). I don’t try to do it “generically”, because this
is inherently a specialized platform optimization. (2k has a good
scheduling resolution, but the crappy sound drivers generally make small
writeaheads not work anyway.)

When things get this low-level, I tend to take over and call native
APIs. SDL is a reasonable high-level API for simple applications, but
for a well-tuned cross-platform game that wants to adjust based on things
like scheduling resolution, it’s time to stop going through a middleman.On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:13:21PM +0100, Torsten Giebl wrote:

Nope. Windows 2000, Windows XP and the Linux 2.6 kernel have fine-
grained scheduling. They’ll do 1ms sleeps without busy looping.

But is it possible to get the actual size without
including the Kernel Sources :-???

–
Glenn Maynard