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 DDFC1A0A0F; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:51:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0284068F; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:51:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7071340147 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:51:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD27A5C0062; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 11:51:33 -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= 2DnCizI9ZgxEKU7XPp2BkF7Gr05YHHFT4XvJTXIpUjg=; b=u06Co9GyZceHUJty Zr6117TgXKKFyjz64hHGEMiIwjXt2rhv3MTbqa+eWvoKPqKis6PJxbeFVzClvmWe wmF/OnxbDCCD8bljZqSydZhnD0nlHrTIw3v6uU+RsVU4Q7MZZepykSu2D3VzHQGl uB8sZrK/iHmwIeuN/K5Me3ZFGzlqmHjuRNESSLdcPUP2JZ+22hLX95FyxddiMNm7 z5IENjJmtPxO5JcsE/U6sdIAWPENhWHkWMkRLS2KWmUCs0sUMxwGhH+JJYECnwoo OCy2GcyROJfqXPjSDWeTgW0RpkkFtoftdf5N2D47KuwSzmnYHSY9l/cXkuwxMqzL a/hK+Q== 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=2DnCizI9ZgxEKU7XPp2BkF7Gr05YHHFT4XvJTXIpU jg=; b=V6X0GtKSc9Q+ia8jHmjIuLqXcGwGoGgr76C+UonNs9St9guayEMEdsfMi BS8uZt8iQHn6vUFZRpVk0hLE22nXIeD8pjGUbGSo6SWwtoOhRrSRXZkbbdGX0t+y WXGnwO9WgtUSJ5dFLFzwalTbRWUjZDYJTJAp+N7PQ5sGw/bIl+37D2oH3LKV0eJt 1FZA4+rgvR2ZDgYliYoJBioeDUHW/D3xpuWE/TpYIgPiky1GFEIWzMBvBBI7Ids9 h+5a8xepeN/I3CcndgHxMcnIyFjqcWCdA5z6w3sSrQxO23qp+c9nH+uclho8Y8jY f6iS4gIwg8jSYQ1qMX7ufCDH2wnTw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtuddgleefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveettdekheegheeugfeihffgkeeuleduueeigedtleffueeugeet gfevgeefheehnecuffhomhgrihhnpegrrhhmrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdr nhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:51:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Andrew Rybchenko , Ferruh Yigit , dpdk-dev , Elena Agostini , David Marchand Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:51:29 +0200 Message-ID: <2385250.mgn969muHi@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210602203531.2288645-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <1762355.HKltZAk3iZ@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 17:20, Jerin Jacob: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 7:39 PM Thomas Monjalon 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 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. > > > 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. 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.