Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched: add function nr_running_cpu to expose number of tasks running on cpu

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:10:14AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 12:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:33:04PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > This function will help a thread decide if it wants to to do work
> > > that can be delayed, to accumulate more tasks for more efficient
> > > batch processing later.
> > > 
> > > However, if no other tasks are running on the cpu, it can take
> > > advantgae of the available cpu cycles to complete the tasks
> > > for immediate processing to minimize delay, otherwise it will yield.
> > 
> > Ugh.. and ignore topology and everything else.
> > 
> > Yet another scheduler on top of the scheduler.
> > 
> > We have the padata muck, also only ever used by crypto.
> > We have the workqueue nonsense, used all over the place
> > And we have btrfs doing their own padata like muck.
> > And I'm sure there's at least one more out there, just because.
> > 
> > Why do we want yet another thing?
> > 
> > I'm inclined to go NAK and get people to reduce the amount of async
> > queueing and processing crap.
> 
> The mult-buffer class of crypto algorithms is by nature
> asynchronous.  The algorithm gathers several crypto jobs, and
> put the buffer from each job in a data lane of the SIMD register.
> This allows for parallel processing and increases throughput.
> The gathering of the crypto jobs is an async process and
> queuing is necessary for this class of algorithm.

How is that related to me saying we've got too much of this crap
already?

Attachment: pgpPKmwzz3EBI.pgp
Description: PGP signature