> -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 23:51 > To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; > dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; > Elena Agostini <eagost...@nvidia.com>; David Marchand > <david.march...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gpudev: introduce memory API > > 04/06/2021 17:20, Jerin Jacob: > > 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. > > Yes it looks like the exact same scope. > I like the word "co-processor" in this context. > > > If your scope is something similar and No Graphics involved here then > > we can remove G. > > Indeed no graphics in DPDK :) > By removing the G, you mean keeping only PU? like "pudev"? > We could also define the G as "General". > > > 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) > > Yes baseband processing is one possible usage of GPU with DPDK. > We could also imagine some security analysis, or any machine learning... > > > I can think of "coprocessor-dev" as one of the name. > > "coprocessor" looks too long as prefix of the functions. > > > 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. >
Accelerator, 'acce_dev' ? ;-) > Yes that's the idea to share a common synchronization mechanism > with different HW. > > That's cool to have such a big interest in the community for this patch. >
