On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:58 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 03/06/2021 11:33, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 6/3/2021 8:47 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:05 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > wrote: > > >> + [gpudev] (@ref rte_gpudev.h), > > > > > > Since this device does not have a queue etc? Shouldn't make it a > > > library like mempool with vendor-defined ops? > > > > +1 > > > > Current RFC announces additional memory allocation capabilities, which can > > suits > > better as extension to existing memory related library instead of a new > > device > > abstraction library. > > It is not replacing mempool. > It is more at the same level as EAL memory management: > allocate simple buffer, but with the exception it is done > on a specific device, so it requires a device ID. > > The other reason it needs to be a full library is that > it will start a workload on the GPU and get completion notification > so we can integrate the GPU workload in a packet processing pipeline.
I might have confused you. My intention is not to make to fit under mempool API. I agree that we need a separate library for this. My objection is only to not call libgpudev and call it libgpu. And have APIs with rte_gpu_ instead of rte_gpu_dev as it not like existing "device libraries" in DPDK and it like other "libraries" in DPDK. > >
