04/06/2021 13:09, Jerin Jacob: > 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.
I think we should define a queue of processing actions, so it looks like other device libraries. And anyway I think a library managing a device class, and having some device drivers deserves the name of device library. I would like to read more opinions.
