From 4ce3729fbd9188069eb5305e5dceffeb0dfc5b1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: simon <simon@cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:07:58 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Add a lengthy comment warning future front-end implementors
 about the right and wrong way to implement the timing interface.

git-svn-id: svn://svn.tartarus.org/sgt/putty@5137 cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e
---
 putty.h | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)

diff --git a/putty.h b/putty.h
index 7686e6b2..c2a7c453 100644
--- a/putty.h
+++ b/putty.h
@@ -993,6 +993,67 @@ char *get_random_data(int bytes);      /* used in cmdgen.c */
  * notifies the front end that a new timer has been added to the
  * list which is sooner than any existing ones. It provides the
  * time when that timer needs to go off.
+ * 
+ * *** FRONT END IMPLEMENTORS NOTE:
+ * 
+ * There's an important subtlety in the front-end implementation of
+ * the timer interface. When a front end is given a `next' value,
+ * either returned from run_timers() or via timer_change_notify(),
+ * it should ensure that it really passes _that value_ as the `now'
+ * parameter to its next run_timers call. It should _not_ simply
+ * call GETTICKCOUNT() to get the `now' parameter when invoking
+ * run_timers().
+ * 
+ * The reason for this is that an OS's system clock might not agree
+ * exactly with the timing mechanisms it supplies to wait for a
+ * given interval. I'll illustrate this by the simple example of
+ * Unix Plink, which uses timeouts to select() in a way which for
+ * these purposes can simply be considered to be a wait() function.
+ * Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this wait() function
+ * tends to return early by 1%. Then a possible sequence of actions
+ * is:
+ * 
+ *  - run_timers() tells the front end that the next timer firing
+ *    is 10000ms from now.
+ *  - Front end calls wait(10000ms), but according to
+ *    GETTICKCOUNT() it has only waited for 9900ms.
+ *  - Front end calls run_timers() again, passing time T-100ms as
+ *    `now'.
+ *  - run_timers() does nothing, and says the next timer firing is
+ *    still 100ms from now.
+ *  - Front end calls wait(100ms), which only waits for 99ms.
+ *  - Front end calls run_timers() yet again, passing time T-1ms.
+ *  - run_timers() says there's still 1ms to wait.
+ *  - Front end calls wait(1ms).
+ * 
+ * If you're _lucky_ at this point, wait(1ms) will actually wait
+ * for 1ms and you'll only have woken the program up three times.
+ * If you're unlucky, wait(1ms) might do nothing at all due to
+ * being below some minimum threshold, and you might find your
+ * program spends the whole of the last millisecond tight-looping
+ * between wait() and run_timers().
+ * 
+ * Instead, what you should do is to _save_ the precise `next'
+ * value provided by run_timers() or via timer_change_notify(), and
+ * use that precise value as the input to the next run_timers()
+ * call. So:
+ * 
+ *  - run_timers() tells the front end that the next timer firing
+ *    is at time T, 10000ms from now.
+ *  - Front end calls wait(10000ms).
+ *  - Front end then immediately calls run_timers() and passes it
+ *    time T, without stopping to check GETTICKCOUNT() at all.
+ * 
+ * This guarantees that the program wakes up only as many times as
+ * there are actual timer actions to be taken, and that the timing
+ * mechanism will never send it into a tight loop.
+ * 
+ * (It does also mean that the timer action in the above example
+ * will occur 100ms early, but this is not generally critical. And
+ * the hypothetical 1% error in wait() will be partially corrected
+ * for anyway when, _after_ run_timers() returns, you call
+ * GETTICKCOUNT() and compare the result with the returned `next'
+ * value to find out how long you have to make your next wait().)
  */
 typedef void (*timer_fn_t)(void *ctx, long now);
 long schedule_timer(int ticks, timer_fn_t fn, void *ctx);
-- 
2.11.0