04/06/2021 15:59, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 6/4/21 4:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/06/2021 15:05, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> On 6/4/21 3:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Since the library is an unified interface to GPU device drivers > >> I think it should be named as in the patch - gpudev. > >> > >> Mempool looks like an exception here - initially it was pure SW > >> library, but not there are HW backends and corresponding device > >> drivers. > >> > >> What I don't understand where is GPU specifics here? > > > > That's an interesting question. > > Let's ask first what is a GPU for DPDK? > > I think it is like a sub-CPU with high parallel execution capabilities, > > and it is controlled by the CPU. > > I have no good ideas how to name it in accordance with > above description to avoid "G" which for "Graphics" if > understand correctly. However, may be it is not required. > No strong opinion on the topic, but unbinding from > "Graphics" would be nice.
That's a question I ask myself for months now. I am not able to find a better name, and I start thinking that "GPU" is famous enough in high-load computing to convey the idea of what we can expect.
