On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 7:39 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 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.
The closest I can think of is big-little architecture in ARM SoC. https://www.arm.com/why-arm/technologies/big-little We do have similar architecture, Where the "coprocessor" is part of the main CPU. It is operations are: - Download firmware - Memory mapping for Main CPU memory by the co-processor - Enq/Deq Jobs from/to Main CPU/Coprocessor CPU. If your scope is something similar and No Graphics involved here then we can remove G. Coincidentally, Yesterday, I had an interaction with Elena for the same for BaseBand related work in ORAN where GPU used as Baseband processing instead of Graphics.(So I can understand the big picture of this library) I can think of "coprocessor-dev" as one of the name. We do have similar machine learning co-processors(for compute) if we can keep a generic name and it is for the above functions we may use this subsystem as well in the future. > > >
