Somewhat OT, but... On Feb 22, 2010, at 19:51, Greywolf wrote:
In such an implementation, have you considered having the ability to exclusively bind the entirety of a crypto handler to one cpu out of 4 or whatever, or would that be more of a loss? [I don't see a lot of gain from 3 cpus up to 4, but then I'm not benchmarking, either. If I were doing accelerated crypto, I would consider it acceptable to have a single cpu of the multi- core system dedicated exclusively to handling crypto.]
I've had some similar thoughts. Not doing a lot of benchmarking, but using lightly-loadd real-world workloads, I see a *clear* advantage in 2 processors. Both desktop and server benefit. But, I've been wondering of the advantages of four. I mean, certainly, the "right software" makes great use of such, but few are the "right softwares" in my experience, and they aren't the general-purpose systems. (more now than 10 years ago, but....)
I find interesting the idea of dedicating a CPU to some tasks like crypto, that are CPU expensive. If the kernel and/or libs were engineered such that any vaguely multi-thread-capable application need do nothing to have a "marked" CPU handle all the crypto, and the other threads handle everything else, it does seem kinda cool...
And of course, the same invitation for dismissium applies...
- Chris