From c98344df224cc0cc6c3e666b9b536f5bd15dcde7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dennis Peeten <dpeeten@onsneteindhoven.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 18:59:48 +0000
Subject: forgot a \cite{} command...

---
 report/chapter3.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/report/chapter3.tex b/report/chapter3.tex
index 265e44e..ee1650e 100644
--- a/report/chapter3.tex
+++ b/report/chapter3.tex
@@ -81,6 +81,6 @@ The main idea is to modify the scheduler to exploit these holes to schedule some
 
 When the DSP is idle the scheduler selects the task with the highest priority between those at the head of the two queues. When the DSP is active, the scheduler select the highest priority task from the head of the regular queue only. In this way, a task using the DSP blocks all other tasks requiring the DSP, but not the regular tasks, which can freely execute on the master processor in the holes created by DSP activities.
 
-Because the DSP tasks executing on the DSP cannot be preempted, it can happen that a lower priority DSP task $ \tau_i $ is blocking a higher priority task that was released during the execution of $ \tau_i $ on the DSP. The blocking of high priority DSP tasks by lower priority DSP task has to be accounted for in the schedulability test. This test is presented {gab-mdssa-02} using the hyperbolic bound.
+Because the DSP tasks executing on the DSP cannot be preempted, it can happen that a lower priority DSP task $ \tau_i $ is blocking a higher priority task that was released during the execution of $ \tau_i $ on the DSP. The blocking of high priority DSP tasks by lower priority DSP task has to be accounted for in the schedulability test. This test is presented \cite{gab-mdssa-02} using the hyperbolic bound.
 
 The article furthermore present results of a simulation of the described algorithm and compares them to schedules generated by the distributed priority ceiling protocol (DPCP). However they do not mention the method of priority assignment used in their simulation.
-- 
cgit v0.12

