[PATCH RFC 0/4] Scheduler idle notifiers and users

[Peter Zijlstra]

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.