On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 14:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix > > > that I suppose), and you then double check there really isn't anything > > > else running. > > > > Note that we've already done a large part of the expense of going idle > > by the time we call that idle notifier -- in specific, we've > > reprogrammed the clock to stop the tick. > > > > Its really wasteful to then generate work again, which means we have to > > again reprogram the clock etc. > > Doing anything which is not related to idle itself in the idle > notifier is just plain wrong.
I don't like the kicking the multi-buffer job flush using idle_notifier path either. I'll try another version of the patch by doing this in the multi-buffer job handler path. > > If that stuff wants to utilize idle slots, we really need to come up > with a generic and general solution. Otherwise we'll grow those warts > all over the architecture space, with slightly different ways of > wreckaging the world an some more. > > This whole attidute of people thinking that they need their own > specialized scheduling around the real scheduler is a PITA. All this > stuff is just damanging any sensible approach of power saving, load > balancing, etc. > > What we really want is infrastructure, which allows the scheduler to > actively query the async work situation and based on the results > actively decide when to process it and where. I agree with you. It will be great if we have such infrastructure. Thanks. Tim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
