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 2B918A0A0A; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:36:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9934A40E78; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:36:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE81640DF6 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:36:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8C75C0117; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 05:36:06 -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= KdIOKQny4TNK7FSlYG6xOjQd9mc+/F2Zi6K3cRGQrAo=; b=EApukDpndD0UKkte sLENhbaCWokhT28grf1EDDg+3koCO4VhoxPAOuBNEdcpRSCoacn/35/HlzvyoWhf MTybxAxZ96dm9uFvvFC/SCvB4LVm4vU2L8n8F34+6f0Aw7GY3tj/0d6cdsUkZNG6 FHMaqSzg5ufuvLSLjUQSY80IjYyg92K6DudHMLuHHl8CdM01fKP8jx23F5gXAygP mV7Q2+x3/2Sp52tL6bymf04oFFf4/aiZ99QOgfO1Y9McrgNBPmsIz4I2oD9nqXlA z0fOYpm/BZC++gBSLSDKoDkEr6jvoRdgzzJsDFVYiRNynzCrW88kqLgXmLjRRx6Q issvGg== 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=KdIOKQny4TNK7FSlYG6xOjQd9mc+/F2Zi6K3cRGQr Ao=; b=WYOBDWNTdiOUyHpvU0BdRYzBlqYOIbDulcedDWH0EaGY0kou0wSIPb4I9 cCrPY47v4XqaxFyO71CUyhepUuc/3jnADeGDGNMvXY6RJht76n3VcdxMeX2TKnIn 0h+F18LiUqojjK/6Dybjk1FqGgZ/nrUgDNh5cl6nn3YKB0Q0OAUg5rguXaZxH85T dsvB/l4RQ2yX6Vjyw0wDeTCM5XBfOsgVMXmrFr6hyEeVti+6dSZNzPatFP/IPrl/ jyBuT3EZ56n+MGTEtHVQT4wuxJVw3GzRplozNNh86LXmOgYMHq5IFqGmynz8We65 x0tkM3IEmf33kbIAbto+4dFPhqn2w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdelledgudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:36:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: dpdk-dev , Elena Agostini Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 11:36:04 +0200 Message-ID: <2514191.Ay6nQiMiuT@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210602203531.2288645-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <2479672.ZMpKsOhbnr@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" 03/06/2021 11:20, Jerin Jacob: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:23 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 03/06/2021 10:47, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:13 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > 03/06/2021 10:41, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:58 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 03/06/2021 09:47, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:05 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > --- a/doc/api/doxy-api-index.md > > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/api/doxy-api-index.md > > > > > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ The public API headers are grouped by topics: > > > > > > > > [compressdev] (@ref rte_compressdev.h), > > > > > > > > [compress] (@ref rte_comp.h), > > > > > > > > [regexdev] (@ref rte_regexdev.h), > > > > > > > > + [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? > > > > > > > Any specific reason for making it a device? The reason why I am asking > > > > > > > this is, as other DPDK devices as symmetry in queue(s), configure, > > > > > > > start, stop operation etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +struct rte_gpu_dev { > > > > > > > > + /* Backing device. */ > > > > > > > > + struct rte_device *device; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See above? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a PCI device probed. > > > > > > I don't understand why it would not be represented as a device. > > > > > > > > > > All other DPDK device has symmetry in structures like queue and > > > > > symmetry in operation like it has configure, start, stop etc. > > > > > This one seems more like mempool to me all we want set of > > > > > vendor-defined ops. So any justification on > > > > > make it a device ? why not like mempool library? > > > > > (driver/mempool/octeontx2 Mempool HW is also PCI device, but > > > > > we don't take device path for mempool. So I would like to understand > > > > > any technical reason for making it a device). > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by "symmetry". > > > > > > The common attributes. or similarity > > > > The common attributes of a device are: > > - driver > > - bus > > - devargs > > We have these attributes for a GPU. > > Yes. Those are attributes of rte_device. That does not mean and > library can not use rte_device.(mempool library driver is using > rte_device which is backed by PCI) > In terms of similarity, all other device libraries(not devices) have > queue, enqueue() and dequeue() kind of scheme > in ethdev, cryptodev, compressdev, eventdev, bbdev, rawdev. regexdev. > i.e existing DPDK device libraries, > This one des not have have that, So question why to call it libgpudev vs libgpu. > > The functions you have are memory allocation etc. That's more of a > library candidate. > > > About configure/start/stop usual functions, > > I think we'll have something similar in the second step > > Do you think or it will be there?. I think, it is import decision. That's an important discussion we need to have. We are preparing a proposal. > The device needs have a queue kind of structure > and it is mapping to core to have a notion of configure. queue_setup, > start and stop etc Why is it a requirement to call it a device API? > Something similar to > http://code.dpdk.org/dpdk/v21.05/source/lib/regexdev/rte_regexdev.h#L27 > Could you share how "running tasks" translates to the above scheme > like other her dpdk device libraries? We will share our view soon but what to control in GPU execution must be a community discussed requirement.