Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Support
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
R
rt-proofs
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Analytics
CI / CD Analytics
Repository Analytics
Value Stream Analytics
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Maxime Lesourd
rt-proofs
Commits
a2e2342c
Commit
a2e2342c
authored
Aug 23, 2019
by
Martin PORTALIER
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Update readme.md
parent
2b71ab39
Pipeline
#19291
failed with stages
in 2 minutes and 10 seconds
Changes
1
Pipelines
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
6 additions
and
5 deletions
+6
-5
restructuring/analysis/fpp_implicit_deadline/readme.md
restructuring/analysis/fpp_implicit_deadline/readme.md
+6
-5
No files found.
restructuring/analysis/fpp_implicit_deadline/readme.md
View file @
a2e2342c
...
...
@@ -64,14 +64,15 @@ Finally, to demonstrate that the workload bound is reached we prove that :
### To go further
One problem in those files is that the workload definition is not the same in the intermediate file and is the workload_bound_fp file.
It is possible to unify those two one at the begining but I did not do it since I noticed the difference after proving the bound.
One problem in those files is that the workload definition is not the same in the intermediate file and in the workload_bound_fp file.
It is possible to unify those two one at the begining, but I didn't do it since I noticed the difference after proving
that the job response time is bounded.
Neverthless it is mandatory to unifiy those definitions to prove that the bound is reached (as we need to show an exact equality).
Therefore, I proved the equivalence of those two definitions a bit late
, but doing it ealier could simplify a lot some other proof
.
It could be a good improvement to clarify the whole proof
.
Therefore, I proved the equivalence of those two definitions a bit late.
Doing it ealier could be a good improvement to clarify the whole proof since it simplifies a lot some other lemma proofs
.
Another problem is that I did
no
t prove that all jobs complete.
Another problem is that I did
n'
t prove that all jobs complete.
One way to demonstrate it should be to suppose that the utilization of the job-considered highest prority level is less than 1.
In other words, the processor is not busy for this priority level.
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment