| |||||||||||||
The leap second bugThe leap second bugPosted Jul 5, 2012 5:20 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727)In reply to: The leap second bug by slashdot Parent article: The leap second bug
Fixed rate is out - while we only guaranteed a low frame rate, we also wanted to achieve a high frame rate if possible, as in the common case (main feed to transmitter, received transmission, low bit rate "we are sorry for any inconvenience" feed), we can meet full frame rate. Your suggested solution has the same problem as a low timeout - in terms of system overhead, it's identical, plus it now needs extra analysis to verify that the decode thread will run often enough. The advantage of a 50ms timeout is that it's obvious that the decode thread will run once every 50ms in the worst case. In general, it's a bad idea to introduce complexity for the maintenance programmer - if it's not obvious, there's a good chance they'll miss it, make an apparently unrelated change, and now the render thread isn't kicking until you've missed 4 frames, instead of waking up after you've missed 3. And in non-embedded systems, you get small timeouts by calculation - e.g. "wait for the result of the work I've just asked another thread to do, or for the application layer keepalive timeout to expire". If you've already done 239 seconds of work on this request, and the keepalive timer is 4 minutes, the computed time to sleep will be under a second. Adding extra application code to make the timeout sloppy (e.g. send the keepalive early if the remaining is less than 5 seconds) is extra complexity for a rare case that isn't even needed in the absence of kernel/libc bugs (and one of the powerful points of open source is that you can fix kernel/libc bugs if they affect you, instead of having to have everyone work around them).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||