On 2023-12-31 00:11, Michael van Elst wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 10:48:26PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:Right. But if you expect high precision on delays and scheduling, then you start also having issues with just random unpredictable delays because of other interrupts, paging, and whatnot. So in the end, your high precision delays and scheduling becomes very imprecise again. So, is there really that much value in that higher resolution?Better than 100Hz is possible and still precise. Something around 1000Hz is necessary for human interaction. Modern hardware could easily do 100kHz.
? If I remember right, anything less than 200ms is immediate response for a human brain. Which means you can get away with much coarser than even 100Hz. And there are certainly lots of examples of older computers with clocks running in the 10s of ms, where human interaction feels perfect.
Another advantage is that you can use independent timing (that's what bites in the emulator case where guest and host clocks run at the same rate).
I think that is a separate question/problem/issue. That we fail when guest and host run at the same rate is something I consider a flaw in the system. It's technically perfectly possible to run such a combo good, and the fact that we didn't (don't) is just sad (in my opinion).
Not sure what you mean by independent timing here. For me, that would be if you had two different clock sources independent of each other.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol