Re: [AD] Add timeBeginPeriod(1) to wtimer.c

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Didn't think of 100...
> More experiments: using 10 or more doesn't change the behavior. So
> there's
> an effect only when the requested precision is <10.

Ok. I suppose that need not be too surprising.

> > I agree. That'll make it post 4.2 material though.
> So it seems. Sniff.

Don't worry. We want people to have a reason to upgrade, right? ;)

> When you begin to play around with my program (to be posted on the
> forum)
> then you might also see something of that sort: Having 3000 balls the
> prog
> needs about 10% cpu, 4000 balls result in about 50% cpu (on my 3GHz PC
> at
> work). That is with allegro unchanged.
> No, adding timeBeginPeriod(1) to only the rest() function, 3000 balls
> use
> some 25-30%, but 4000 balls use hardly more than 30% also.
> It's this kind of non-linear behavior which I find most irritating
> here...

Yeah... it's also something I don't really understand. Maybe, if the
granularity is lower, the processor load is more constant whereas if the
load is lower it is more strongly peaked - but how that would tweak the
measured load in the way you describe is beyond me. Depending on how the
load is calculated and measured (this must involve some averaging as well)
the result may not be too accurate either. Just guessing though.

Evert