Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gpudev: introduce memory API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

04/06/2021 13:09, Jerin Jacob:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:58 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@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 <thomas@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.