[PATCH 1/4] um: irqs: process outstanding IRQs when unblocking signals

[Benjamin Beichler]

>> Yes but you need to schedule for the interrupt, and you don't
>> necessarily know what 'current time' is at interrupt time.
>>
>> So let's say you have "something" that's scheduled to run at times
>>   - 1000
>>   - 2000
>>   - 3000
>>
>> and free-until is 10000 or something high.
>>
> It can also happen without free-until, then it just depends which one of
> the two - they're running in parallel now (linux doing time-travel
> interrupt handling and adding the event, the other thing continuing to
> schedule and doing the next entry)  - asks the controller first.

Since they happen at the same time, most discrete event simulations make 
the assumption, that the actual order of execution should not be part of 
the semantics.

Although, most of the implementations demand a deterministic order (for 
repetition) but even that requirement is sometimes lifted. So this is no 
contradiction to common discrete event simulations.