Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C / C++ / MFC
  4. threads and their time slots. [modified]

threads and their time slots. [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C / C++ / MFC
debuggingquestion
25 Posts 4 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Stuart Dootson

    Sorrreeeee :-O

    Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Roger Stoltz
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    :laugh:

    "It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
    "High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Stuart Dootson

      Souldrift wrote:

      And so on ... it always jumps 15,6ms forward

      Here's what Mark Russinovitch and David Solomon say in Windows Internals

      _

      On Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP, threads run by default for 2 clock intervals; on Windows Server systems, by default, a thread runs for 12 clock intervals. The rationale for the longer default value on server systems is to minimize context switching. By having a longer quantum, server applications that wake up as the result of a client request have a better chance of completing the request and going back into a wait state before their quantum ends

      The length of the clock interval varies according to the hardware platform. The frequency of the clock interrupts is up to the HAL, not the kernel. For example, the clock interval for most x86 uniprocessors is about 10 milliseconds and for most x86 multiprocessors it is about 15 milliseconds. (The actual clock rate is not exactly a round number of milliseconds—see the following experiment for a way to check the actual clock interval.)

      EXPERIMENT: Determining the Clock Interval Frequency

      The Windows GetSystemTimeAdjustment function returns the clock interval. To determine the clock interval, download and run the Clockres program[^] from http://www.sysinternals.com.

      _

      That kind of confirms what you're seeing (and what I see - which is 15.625, or 500/32). HOWEVER!!!! I steered you wrong with waitable timers. I mistook them for a TimerQueueTimer in my memory. Try this:

      #include <Windows.h>
      #include <tchar.h>
      #include <iostream>

      void ReportTime(const char* message, LONGLONG const& when)
      {
      std::cout << message << double(when)/10000.0 << std::endl;
      }

      LONG count;
      LARGE_INTEGER liStart, liEnd, liFreq;

      VOID CALLBACK DoSendHere(__in_opt LPVOID lpArgToCompletionRoutine,
      __in DWORD dwTimerLowValue,
      __in DWORD dwTimerHighValue)
      {
      QueryPerformanceCounter(&liEnd);
      count++;
      }

      void SendLoop()
      {
      HANDLE hTimerQueue = CreateTimerQueue();
      HANDLE hTimer;
      count = 0;
      CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 1, 1, WT_EXECU

      S Offline
      S Offline
      Souldrift
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      Uhh, thanks, I´ll try that out in a moment. Thanks for the writings on Windows Internals. Who could have known such a thing :). Very interesting. Two things, though. Why do you set a sleep time of 65ms (instead of infinite)? And I don´t see why this should circumvent the 15ms time-slice. QueryPerformanceCounter might 'see' higher resolution, but if the thread sleeps for 15ms, there´s nothing to see? Or is there? Souldrift

      S 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Souldrift

        Uhh, thanks, I´ll try that out in a moment. Thanks for the writings on Windows Internals. Who could have known such a thing :). Very interesting. Two things, though. Why do you set a sleep time of 65ms (instead of infinite)? And I don´t see why this should circumvent the 15ms time-slice. QueryPerformanceCounter might 'see' higher resolution, but if the thread sleeps for 15ms, there´s nothing to see? Or is there? Souldrift

        S Offline
        S Offline
        Stuart Dootson
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        The 65ms is just an example time - it can't be infinite because I want it to terminate :-) The thing that's seeing past the 15.625 timer resolution is the TimerQueueTimer. That has a resolution of 1ms. The program is intended to show that the timer callback is called with a resolution of 1ms, so could be used in your case, so long as your thread can remain the active thread.

        Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

        S 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Stuart Dootson

          The 65ms is just an example time - it can't be infinite because I want it to terminate :-) The thing that's seeing past the 15.625 timer resolution is the TimerQueueTimer. That has a resolution of 1ms. The program is intended to show that the timer callback is called with a resolution of 1ms, so could be used in your case, so long as your thread can remain the active thread.

          Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

          S Offline
          S Offline
          Souldrift
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          Okay, I thought so (after some thinking). Now if you will bear with me one more time, I´m not quite sure how to understand (handle) this regarding my case. For example if I use this (cause 9ms are appx. the time I need to wait before sending)

          CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 9, 1, WT_EXECUTEINTIMERTHREAD);
          QueryPerformanceCounter(&liStart);
          ::SleepEx(65, TRUE);

          The callback func should with a 65ms sleep be called like 7 times. Though my log shows 54. I guess, this is because the timer doesn´t stop after my sleep or my sending. So the next question would be, how do I stop it? I know, i doesn´t even have to be periodic for what I need (so it would stop by itself), but I´m trying to understand the structure. I added a DeleteTimerQueueEx( hTimerQueue, NULL ); but it crashes now at that point. Souldrift Edit: And why does it not call the callback func when I take away the sleepEx()?? Is it dependant on the thread being asleep? If I do this

          CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 1, 0, WT_EXECUTEINTIMERTHREAD);
          QueryPerformanceCounter(&liStart);
          ::SleepEx(10, TRUE);

          it doesn´t enter, either.

          modified on Monday, July 6, 2009 4:32 AM

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Souldrift

            Okay, I thought so (after some thinking). Now if you will bear with me one more time, I´m not quite sure how to understand (handle) this regarding my case. For example if I use this (cause 9ms are appx. the time I need to wait before sending)

            CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 9, 1, WT_EXECUTEINTIMERTHREAD);
            QueryPerformanceCounter(&liStart);
            ::SleepEx(65, TRUE);

            The callback func should with a 65ms sleep be called like 7 times. Though my log shows 54. I guess, this is because the timer doesn´t stop after my sleep or my sending. So the next question would be, how do I stop it? I know, i doesn´t even have to be periodic for what I need (so it would stop by itself), but I´m trying to understand the structure. I added a DeleteTimerQueueEx( hTimerQueue, NULL ); but it crashes now at that point. Souldrift Edit: And why does it not call the callback func when I take away the sleepEx()?? Is it dependant on the thread being asleep? If I do this

            CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 1, 0, WT_EXECUTEINTIMERTHREAD);
            QueryPerformanceCounter(&liStart);
            ::SleepEx(10, TRUE);

            it doesn´t enter, either.

            modified on Monday, July 6, 2009 4:32 AM

            S Offline
            S Offline
            Stuart Dootson
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            Souldrift wrote:

            CreateTimerQueueTimer(&hTimer, hTimerQueue, (WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)&DoSendHere, 0 , 9, 1, WT_EXECUTEINTIMERTHREAD);

            You're asking for a timer with an initial delay of 9ms and periodic delays after that of 1ms.

            Souldrift wrote:

            DeleteTimerQueueEx( hTimerQueue, NULL );

            Think that should be DeleteTimerQueueTimer( hTimerQueue, hTimer, 0 );. That worked for me, anyway.

            Souldrift wrote:

            And why does it not call the callback func when I take away the sleepEx()?? Is it dependant on the thread being asleep?

            The thread needs to be in an alertable state - look at the MSDN documentation[^] for what that means.

            Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            Reply
            • Reply as topic
            Log in to reply
            • Oldest to Newest
            • Newest to Oldest
            • Most Votes


            • Login

            • Don't have an account? Register

            • Login or register to search.
            • First post
              Last post
            0
            • Categories
            • Recent
            • Tags
            • Popular
            • World
            • Users
            • Groups