On Fri, 04 Oct 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 10/04/2013 03:33 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> I would rather fix current behaviour instead introducing yet another > >> option. By using -d0 I assume that all threads wakeup at the same time. > > > > Nop they do not -d0 just says that they all use > > the same period rather than some offset with multiple threads (e.g. -S) > > > >> According to your patch this does not happen due to the thread creating > >> / starting overhead. > >> Is there is a reason to keep this "faulty" behavior? If not I would vote > >> to make this what you suggest the default. > >> > > > > its not faulty behavior - its a different case > > in fact we need both. > > > > same period + "random" start time > > same period + synced start time > > > > it makes a difference on some boxes that is significant. > > So you say with -d0, where d is documented as "distance of thread > intervals in us", I should not expect that all threads share the exact > same wakeup time (because their distance is 0)? > no why should you - you might want -i 100 -d 50 -A 20 T1 0 100 200 300 T2 20 170 T3 40 240 T4 60 310 Which is quite a lot different than just stating that i_1=100 i_2=150, etc... but initial distance "undefined" or random so in the sense of schedulability tests these are really two seperate parameters and thus should be configurable independently. That the current documentation might give the impression that they are in sync is a bug in the documentation not in the -d implementation. hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
