On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:24:17 +0100 Carsten Emde <Carsten.Emde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Clark, > > >> [..] > >> Here is my proposal: > >> Do not change the meaning of existing options. Introduce a new option > >> that is mutual exclusive with the -a, the -t and the -d option. This new > >> option does the same as -a and -t and -d0 and sets the same priority to > >> all threads. How about that? > > Ugh, I truly *hate* adding options. Do you know that cyclictest is > > halfway to having as many options as 'ls'? > Well, yes, we have the choice between two bad things, breaking > compatibility or adding another option. I prefer the latter. Ok, I yield() :) > > [..] > > How about if we create the -S/--smp option that takes no arguments and > > causes -a, -t and -d to be ignored (with a warning). This option would > > create one thread per cpu, each thread pinned to it's corresponding > > cpu, all with the same sampling interval (i.e. -d0) and the same > > priority? > Sounds good to me. > > May I ask you to also include the -n option which is almost always > needed? This would then give: > > -S --smp Standard SMP testing (equals -a -t -n -d0), > same priority on all threads. > > Carsten. Yeah, you read my mind. How about -m (mlockall) as well? Clark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
