On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:58 PM Thomas Monjalon [off-list ref] wrote:

03/06/2021 11:33, Ferruh Yigit:

quoted

On 6/3/2021 8:47 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:05 AM Thomas Monjalon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+  [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.