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 0A9CFA034F; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:43:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782324067E; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:43:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03BE40147 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:43:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898CF5C0051; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 06:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 06:43:46 -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= HheLDN+2GvmZyQYTnOs+ToF+7kutL5P3La0V7tIpArU=; b=WuYrE4AQv4ztOoNS FnRtZX3QOVUoYUxV4pWmycOSk+L8Lyqk58YL8GO/zlRdS3t1G0PYiJ01fGjwl2M3 u2zVMsMlOXNiByRw4eXWobYFH1PHXxMpQ6MBBvgk49PeasBejkf3QwlpL8Szn6JN 3/DPe9tqXt9/odeub2AlduMjKP8a6LoeXX32QaZK29YOsyKfqgySPgftM8yaIAu0 3AkvPaeO2GYImKNlxkYZz9SUEEUsqQXwPgVFMf40S+k4IC5zPB9D5JCPNsgBUrbQ H5mn7COAxoDKzUq+ZEOL53Eiv6f+w3s8OnneXqEI2Ur/EJpNw5jU20Tv9oGQWrbK x3Bzcw== 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=HheLDN+2GvmZyQYTnOs+ToF+7kutL5P3La0V7tIpA rU=; b=jrKlPxP0bAjBAcy6lNKkXmq7vGKWdHMRPiGEwKcy8oiNAUZE4B5nkD6Il jY571XKHyha5uXALQeFSSkfX2mCeyMGnBt7r4OqtNexLqgF5o1r3xc3U0ztYI7vo rrpJkIMNHzwR/canG9m99R1wHoreadQjlIDshHnDcFV+JFsfW16t4y9BpJT/xPhT mAEgclxVXeNyyH5ZII5BtGuQ7LaCfR8rAoo+QhWAa35b9WDVgORAg+HKBtwLTlA3 9MC00ccQj86GcB1qkbEJaBfn0EGgJ2V590/vqjH5HLHbopk5qD6hxMdlC4NLxZoi sZb7hmw6Kmacdt0ljcsBaqBlab2tQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtjedgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 06:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Jerin Jacob Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Andrew Rybchenko , "Yigit, Ferruh" , dpdk-dev , Elena Agostini , David Marchand , nd , "Wang, Haiyue" Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:43:42 +0200 Message-ID: <3716354.mlbyQRhZUS@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210602203531.2288645-1-thomas@monjalon.net> 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" 07/06/2021 09:20, Wang, Haiyue: > From: Honnappa Nagarahalli > > If we keep CXL in mind, I would imagine that in the future the devices on PCIe could have their own > > local memory. May be some of the APIs could use generic names. For ex: instead of calling it as > > "rte_gpu_malloc" may be we could call it as "rte_dev_malloc". This way any future device which hosts > > its own memory that need to be managed by the application, can use these APIs. > > > > "rte_dev_malloc" sounds a good name, Yes I like the idea. 2 concerns: 1/ Device memory allocation requires a device handle. So far we avoided exposing rte_device to the application. How should we get a device handle from a DPDK application? 2/ Implementation must be done in a driver. Should it be a callback defined at rte_device level? > then looks like we need to enhance the > 'struct rte_device' with some new ops as: > > eal: move DMA mapping from bus-specific to generic driver > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210331224547.2217759-1-thomas@monjalon.net/ Not sure the above patch is a good idea. Let's discuss this DMA detail later :)