Brandt Erickson wrote:
>  > Grmbl, my fault. Your test looks ok, but I was rather referring to your
>> *code*.
> 
> Sorry, here's a small portion of what it outputs.  The first column is the
> timestamp and the second is the overrun value from rt_task_wait_period. 
> In this case, the "control loop" is supposed to be running at 10 KHz.
> 
> 0.000087,	0
> 0.000302,	0
> 0.000522,	0
> 0.000742,	0
> 0.000962,	0
> 0.001182,	0
> 0.001402,	0
> 0.001623,	0
> 0.001843,	0
> 0.002063,	0
> 0.002283,	0
> 0.002503,	0
> 0.002723,	0
> 0.002944,	0
> 0.003164,	0
> 0.003384,	0
> 0.003604,	0
> 0.003824,	0
> 0.004045,	0
> 0.004265,	0
> 0.004485,	0
> 0.004705,	0
> 0.004925,	0
> 0.005146,	0
> 0.005366,	0
> 0.005586,	0
> 0.005806,	0
> 0.006026,	0
> 0.006246,	0
> 0.006467,	0
> 0.006687,	0
> 0.006907,	0
> 0.007127,	0
> 0.007347,	0
> 0.007568,	0
> 0.007788,	0
> 0.008008,	0
> 0.008228,	0
> 0.008448,	0
> 0.008669,	0
> 0.008889,	0
> 0.009109,	0
> 0.009329,	0
> 0.009549,	0
> 0.009769,	0
> 0.009990,	0
> 0.010210,	0
> 

[looking at it again]
Ah, this is drifting! The more important is the code to see what clock
sources you use. They are obviously not in sync.

Jan