mmtimer resolution question

[Duane Clark]

Jeremy White wrote:
> 
> When did that regression first start?  The mmtime and
> ntdll/sync.c code has been this way since late last fall.

I'll just mention that, assuming you are referring to this patch:
http://cvs.winehq.org/patch.py?id=14198
it also causes a regression in Myst. Though I am not convinced the fault 
is in the patch, rather than the patch exposing some other problem.

> 
> The Yield is, imho, correct, except that it exposes the
> fact that we don't correctly implement Windows priority
> schemes.  That can create nasty conditions.
> 
> But I wonder if something else changed that is causing this.
> 
> I'm particularly surprised to find it on a 2.4 kernel; the
> 2.4 kernel quanta was ~ 40 ms, which made Linux a bit less
> sensitive to cpu hogging threads.
> 

Unfortunately, Myst appears to only work under Wine with rather old 
kernels. It works fine for me on RH7.3, kernel 2.4.18, as long as I back 
out that mmtime patch. But Myst fails to work on RH9, kernel 2.4.20, for 
reasons unrelated to the mmtime patch. However, it fails after the point 
where the above patch causes the regression (in the intro Quicktime 
sequence). So even on later kernels, Myst might be a good testbench, 
though I have not tried a later kernel. Surely everyone has an old copy 
of Myst around somewhere ;)

It was discussed a bit more here:
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-users/2005/01/0260.html