<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On 30.05.2012, at 18:30, Jonathan Herman <<a href="mailto:hermanjl@cs.unc.edu">hermanjl@cs.unc.edu</a>> wrote:</span><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I can look at this tonight (I am now PST, so that will be in 12 hours).<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks. I'll take another look tomorrow my time / evening your time as well.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Björn Brandenburg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bbb@mpi-sws.org" target="_blank">bbb@mpi-sws.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br></div>
However, just removing the !preempt check will cause trouble since timers. </blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><div>This got mangled somehow. I meant to say that timers should not be programmed for tasks that are in the ready queue.</div><div><br></div><div>It seems to me the right thing to do is to not add unlinked tasks to the ready queue if they have no budget remaining. Then it is safe to process the job completion even if it coincides with a preemption.</div><div><br></div><div>- Björn</div><div><br></div></body></html>