[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329387265.2293.195.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:14:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Scheduler idle notifiers and users
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 14:31 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:01 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Thing is, the scheduler doesn't care about completion, all it needs is
> > to be able to kick-start the thing atomically. So you really have to
> > wait for it or can you do an interrupt driven state machine?
>
> Or the scheduler callback could schedule a wq to do the job ?
That'll end up being very ugly due to lock inversion etc. If we can get
out of this using self-IPIs I'd much prefer that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists