RE: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2021-Oct-27

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

Hi Jerin,

> > Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2021-Oct-27
> >
> > Members Attending
> > ---------------------------
> > -Aaron
> > -Ferruh
> > -Hemant
> > -Honnappa
> > -Jerin
> > -Kevin
> > -Konstantin (Chair)
> > -Maxime
> > -Stephen
> > -Thomas
> >
> > NOTE: The technical board meetings every second Wednesday at
> > https://meet.jit.si/DPDK at 3 pm UTC.
> > Meetings are public, and DPDK community members are welcome to attend.
> >
> > NOTE: Next meeting will be on Wednesday 2021-Nov-03 @3pm UTC, and will
> > be chaired by Maxime.
> >
> >
> > GPUDEV library / DWA library inclusion
> >   http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/DM6PR12MB41079FAE6B5DA35102B1BBFACDB79@DM6PR12MB4107.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/
> >   http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html
> >
> >
> > 1. GPU dev
> > =========
> >
> > Pros:
> > - simple and clean API
> > - address particular needs:
> >     - external (GPU) memory management within DPDK
> >     - provides generic framework for CPU-GPU-NIC interaction
> > - Not specific to any particular workload
> > - GPU program creation/upload is out of scope for this framework
> >
> > Concerns:
> > -  Framework is specific for just one particular accelerator class (GPU)
> >    If we go that way, does it mean we'll need a separate library/API for each
> >    new HW device class (FPGA, etc.)?
> >
> > 2. DWA dev
> > ==========
> >
> > Pros:
> > - HW neutral abstraction for accelerator communication
> > - HW neutral abstraction for workload definitions (via profile)
> > - Ability to chain services provided by HW (chain multiple profiles)
> > - Sounds like really good approach for SoCs
> >
> > Concerns:
> > - Not easy to agree/define mandatory/optional features for each particular profile
> > - User limited to particular already implemented profiles (longer time to market, etc.)
> > - Richness of features might cause overcomplication in both internal
> >   design/implementation and public API
> >
> > Conclusion
> > =========
> >
> > At that stage it is really hard to predict which approach will be more successful.
> > As both paths can co-exist within DPDK:
> >
> > 1) Go ahead with both approaches as experimental lib/drivers inside DPDK
> 
> Now that there is approval from TB.
> 
> I would like to ask, Is anyone planning to review the specification
> header file [1]?
> 
> There was a comment to remove the TLV length. I will do that next
> version with implementation.
> 
> Identified the following set of work for this.
> 
> 1) Common code at lib/dwa/
> 2) Marvell DPU based driver at drivers/dwa/cnxk/
> 3) Test application at app/test-dwa/
> 4) It is possible to have an SW driver(To allow non-specialized HW to
> use the framework) for this by:
> a) Emulate DWA HW as a separate DPDK process
> b) Add drivers/dwa/sw/ and use memif driver so to create a
> communication channel between emulated DWA HW process and DPDK
> application.
> c) Add drivers/dwa/sw/profiles//l3fwd - To implement l3fwd profile
> using DPDK libraries for SW driver.
> 
> I think, Item (4) aka SW drivers as useful(We don't need to implement
> for all profiles, I think, just for  l3fwd it make sense to add, to
> allow to use of the framework in just SW mode).
> Is there any opinion on adding item (4) in DPDK? I saw mixed opinions
> earlier on this. I would like to understand, Is there any objection to
> doing
> item(4) in DPDK as it needs a good amount of work and  I don't want to
> do throw it away if the community doesn't like this.
> Any opinion?

I'd say (4) is a good thing to have.
Will allow people to try/test DWA approach and framework itself
without access to specific HW.
 
> [1]
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html
> 
> 
> > 2) Re-evaluate both approaches in one year time
> > 3) Both should follow usual DPDK policy for new lib/device classes:
> >     generic framework plus at least one driver implementation
> > 4) Both should be usable with open-source tools
> >     (no exclusive dependency on third-party proprietary SW).
> >
> >