From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CD3A0A0F; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:09:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A4A4068F; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:09:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B683040147 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:09:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD235C0134; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 10:09:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= CDH6H1py46tYyyxAoHkjZEbMMlp1Pv8r+fOh7KuB40s=; b=CSNLbFv99gnHS148 hQSRSklQ6dXQphIxg13WyO9Px7JGVtuoZGvd1lzfD3gJwwvtJ+fmbIwEkc1u0On1 F9JFH3aPZUmuh3oapZ7sZ9rsKFDz1Brbqxkvv0euzadpTUk6a9YAn7EBQcaRWmlH vPUkn104426vmSbp+r2F3oSt6wJRzhHRujR7jdd9T6+JxXxst8Dl0sykSTF7d5wx b4nihn9hr+NCKLnxjImxXPNbqIIIqwKMijUVAPA9JdI/FbbShBBL8KDOMuSzOtqi gv8ZemZeWf7q1ouM1F6xwtkwWl/Qik4likZyXcbVB1BhlrT1BA2kwbJqYFc/5f7/ fa8m3w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=CDH6H1py46tYyyxAoHkjZEbMMlp1Pv8r+fOh7KuB4 0s=; b=X9DphGejIKCN3oF4VT6yX2x3tqTSuIbs2lcb1e29Lf+miiG4bEcDWzJfw WAAmpyt02VLwUUfPpNAZczli/3m9R2LZctcxYNicMSw6PSKbii+mX3JENHzObkVn 41rrUh1bMlvhtQzgbjqWNlkku/tf/XGqqTDpR11HRWmtFf/XGVpVClwGdvt+vZYS LQi0nB4iwlhLyX0PeE5O635FkVbECNV1PsAhF1Fa8gaXJ/zPJtIaes+xpdQUqBOX vxN78BKwE2A+NXvjPLfZByLiUBWEH/ADqc1o7UkEXQnq4q4azZVrGHBJ36lba2Um T41TsCMYpkM0ETRQrnRPffLNaPa3g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtuddgjeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:09:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Jerin Jacob , Ferruh Yigit , dpdk-dev , Elena Agostini , david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:09:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1762355.HKltZAk3iZ@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210602203531.2288645-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <2020675.CS5hdstByM@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gpudev: introduce memory API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 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 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.