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 76715A0A0F; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 07:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26AA4067B; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 07:09:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f182.google.com (mail-il1-f182.google.com [209.85.166.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B6940147 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 07:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f182.google.com with SMTP id b5so10828481ilc.12 for ; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:09:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j++gvqbD7DddLd5He5naD1ac8m6STrf88U2a+29x+T0=; b=q6NN1/Fuz9EHh346eQr4/uBz6IJ+dnwirMK9AEHKjW+MmQ6UyCFekQ+qj/ELF74hMd MBr+cMC3AlKzOkfFgaIH7Rmw51yxllUs6Dz5CfyPTaKXdYYtHI+Zn/Dff99cFWNLRYzo BdQwsulshtLOixyHBjtp0Wai0xhjYeA8sqfuG6Nr1z3KONqx7i2243PyG5lhwNAMMuMv x/iCmlELpaLa4hFQAOtNO5bsYnQ6L6NrxgD2XUlE5p1ozvdDF+yBJIECA+b7Z1lj4kpg goBEcFNFrzItmwk9vnKQZ+xyrzoNnsSdbFYy1ncN6PwsdAJ9tBmXWurE1n9jHzGdzX96 IIhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j++gvqbD7DddLd5He5naD1ac8m6STrf88U2a+29x+T0=; b=iPtQvJfvPlcEWwUpzLksMOHgNGM7teXOVb8f5LZoxXND8t3RY4QqIl+0vSBplHn43p LuPQgkcEspIgaj6dU5OvydSP9lGeE+qo2cEied9hwusHAQmv/kfLmYHT04FXKpZlW4hg Y/HoE6SnSHTRW9/2SX0iaeto2TimZB5eh6n0r/UfDOt+n6tDDLpNVOOieukwY0Lb8rnX MbB/K6X4Bco1cyPWNz5AsAF7aPlmnQiGOBjsequQAlb1auHVaH5yULTF2/XlfaE+Y15B cz3jC9FxOCckfv9IBpBwxfNqEVC9j1+gHH5TXYfTitL6Eo/jgRFb6jH1T6i6vO7YX9kA FsLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5337GM3wLVTWicb7qRm407zMjYiH+bN+nRZw0ZcW1hZNuxfUOXS5 6dhACiYPAoQCaXQb4nLEK+hOd6FwjxFV6A6wcZw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlDEBYNvMnZu5xJ0/EkYQRDZqA8t8oRyIBkb5lj5F/EYji65eKjgV6gfktdRON3SIEXZg0enIaIEw+q2Jk1UY= X-Received: by 2002:a92:1310:: with SMTP id 16mr7204059ilt.60.1622869761814; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:09:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210602203531.2288645-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <1762355.HKltZAk3iZ@thomas> <2385250.mgn969muHi@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:39:05 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Wang, Haiyue" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Andrew Rybchenko , "Yigit, Ferruh" , dpdk-dev , Elena Agostini , David Marchand Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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" On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:50 PM Wang, Haiyue wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 23:51 > > To: Jerin Jacob > > Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli ; Andrew Rybchenko > > ; Yigit, Ferruh ; dpdk-dev ; > > Elena Agostini ; David Marchand > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gpudev: introduce memory API > > > > 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. Yes. Libray name can be lengthy, but API prefix should be 3 letters kind short form will be required. > > > > > 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. > > > > Accelerator, 'acce_dev' ? ;-) It may get confused with HW accelerators. Some of the options I can think of. Sorting in my preference. library name, API prefix 1) libhpc-dev, rte_hpc_ (hpc-> Heterogeneous processor compute) 2) libhc-dev, rte_hc_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_computing see: Example hardware) 3) libpu-dev, rte_pu_ (pu -> processing unit) 4) libhp-dev, rte_hp_ (hp->heterogeneous processor) 5) libcoprocessor-dev, rte_cps_ ? 6) libcompute-dev, rte_cpt_ ? 7) libgpu-dev, rte_gpu_ > > > 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. > > >