On 11/16/2021 6:06 PM, Elena Agostini wrote:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> Date: Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 19:00 > To: Elena Agostini <eagost...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>, Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] app/testpmd: add GPU memory option in iofwd engine > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments> > > On 11/11/2021 9:41 PM, eagost...@nvidia.com wrote: > > --- a/app/test-pmd/meson.build > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/meson.build > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ if dpdk_conf.has('RTE_HAS_JANSSON') > > ext_deps += jansson_dep > > endif > > > > -deps += ['ethdev', 'gro', 'gso', 'cmdline', 'metrics', 'bus_pci'] > > +deps += ['ethdev', 'gro', 'gso', 'cmdline', 'metrics', 'bus_pci', 'gpudev']> > I didn't review the set, but in a very high level do we want to add > 'gpudev' as dependency? Isn't this like adding 'rawdev' as dependency. gpudev is a library that can be built without a gpu driver as all the other libraries and itis actually used only in case of GPU memory mempool. Reasons for this patch are: - Have an upstreamed benchmark tool to measure network metrics using GPU memory - Test some DPDK features not really tested anywhere like the external memory mempool feature
I can see the reason, that is obvious, yet again why we are not adding rawdev testing to the testpmd? But adding gpudev. It is easier to add it to the testpmd, and for some testing perspective it makes sense, but still I am not quite sure about this new dependency, I would like to get more feedback.
