[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Corecleanup_06 has been put in incoming

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:35 PM 01/08/19 +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 01:54:20PM -0400, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
[...]
>> Subject:  [Patch4cvs] Autogame patch
>> Date:     Aug 18, 2001
>> Author:   Ross Wetmore
>> Status:   Tested
>> State:    Submitted to CVS
>> 
>> Description
>>   This adds changes to allow autogames to run at full speed, make a final
>> auto savegame and exits when done. The GAME_MIN_TIMEOUT value is adjusted
>> in DEBUG mode to allow setting a value of -1 to trigger autogame mode.
>> 
>> Dependencies
>>   none
>> 
>> Files Changed:
>> corecleanup_06autogame: freeciv/common/game.h
>> corecleanup_06autogame: freeciv/server/sernet.c
>> corecleanup_06autogame: freeciv/server/srv_main.c
>
>I noticed that in an all-ai game the civserver process doesn't take
>the full cpu like I would expect it. I have never took the time to
>track it down. It looks like your patch address this problem. It this
>correct? If this is the case the select() call is the problem? 

Yes, there is a 1 second timeout on select calls, and at least two such
places where sniff_packets does this. So, you always end up wating until
the next
second rollover. The patch recognizes autogame mode, and returns what it
would if it timed out in select in the code block immediately after rather 
than going through the select code to do this. This is only triggered in
!GAME_PRE_STATE, so you pass through to the normal select code and console 
input until you actually say "go" get into running the game. 

Since you are not sleeping in select, the system also assigns any used
CPU on its clock tick updates to the process, rather than the idle process, 
so the user times are sensible, and more closely match the real times.

Of, course this now makes the server a rather effective client killer,
as there are no gating controls on its output and it never listens for 
input :-).

>If so
>is it possible to add something like
>
> int used_connections=0;
>
>    for(i=0; i<MAX_NUM_CONNECTIONS; i++) {
>      if(connections[i].used) {
>         used_connections++;
>      }
>    }
>   if(!used_connections)
>       return 0;
>
>instead of your code? Would this to the trick?

It might, but I think you want the same GAME_*_STATE checks. I'm also
more comfortable with someone explicitly setting timeout to -1 as an 
indicator that they want just this behaviour, rather than intuiting it 
from the game environment (and possibly getting it wrong).

>       Raimar
>-- 
> email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on tape somewhere."

Cheers,
RossW
=====