10/10/2021 12:16, Jerin Jacob: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 11:13 PM <eagost...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > From: eagostini <eagost...@nvidia.com> > > > > In heterogeneous computing system, processing is not only in the CPU. > > Some tasks can be delegated to devices working in parallel. > > > > The goal of this new library is to enhance the collaboration between > > DPDK, that's primarily a CPU framework, and GPU devices. > > > > When mixing network activity with task processing on a non-CPU device, > > there may be the need to put in communication the CPU with the device > > in order to manage the memory, synchronize operations, exchange info, etc.. > > > > This library provides a number of new features: > > - Interoperability with GPU-specific library with generic handlers > > - Possibility to allocate and free memory on the GPU > > - Possibility to allocate and free memory on the CPU but visible from the > > GPU > > - Communication functions to enhance the dialog between the CPU and the GPU > > In the RFC thread, There was one outstanding non technical issues on this, > > i.e > The above features are driver specific details. Does the DPDK > _application_ need to be aware of this?
I don't see these features as driver-specific. > aka DPDK device class has a fixed personality and it has API to deal > with abstracting specific application specific > end user functionality like ethdev, cryptodev, eventdev irrespective > of underlying bus/device properties. The goal of the lib is to allow anyone to invent any feature which is not already available in DPDK. > Even similar semantics are required for DPU(Smart NIC) > communitication. I am planning to > send RFC in coming days to address the issue without the application > knowing the Bus/HW/Driver details. gpudev is not exposing bus/hw/driver details. I don't understand what you mean. > Irrespective of the RFC I am planning to send and since the new > library needs techboard approval, You may > request that the techboard decide approval for this library. Also, As > far as I remember a minimum a SW driver in > additional to HW driver to accept a new driver class. No, only one driver is required: "When introducing a new device API, at least one driver should implement it." Anyway, a SW driver doesn't make sense for gpudev.
