You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
min_spacing is a optional argument to an action restricting the minimum time delta
between two events scheduled on the action.
It was easy to support when we required actions scheduled monotonically. But now that we will support arbitrary schedulings (#71) we need a complete implementation.
A proposed algorithm looks like this:
When lf_schedule is called with a tag t, if there is a min_spacing. We must search through the event queue and guarantee that there are no other events from the same action scheduled in the time-window" [t-min_spacing, t+min_spacing]. If so, drop the event.
In LF there are actually several policies for handling such an "illegal" schedule:
defer
drop
replace
However, is this well-defined if you try to schedule an event "between" two existing events on the event queue? Where do you defer it to? Which of the two events do you replace?
I think for now we will stick with the drop policy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
min_spacing is a optional argument to an action restricting the minimum time delta
between two events scheduled on the action.
It was easy to support when we required actions scheduled monotonically. But now that we will support arbitrary schedulings (#71) we need a complete implementation.
A proposed algorithm looks like this:
When
lf_schedule
is called with a tagt
, if there is a min_spacing. We must search through the event queue and guarantee that there are no other events from the same action scheduled in the time-window" [t-min_spacing
,t+min_spacing
]. If so, drop the event.In LF there are actually several policies for handling such an "illegal" schedule:
defer
drop
replace
However, is this well-defined if you try to schedule an event "between" two existing events on the event queue? Where do you defer it to? Which of the two events do you replace?
I think for now we will stick with the
drop
policyThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: