Ok. I was hoping you can clarify the contradiction between the existance of the spec below and your "not something any other gpu can reasonably support" statement. I mean, OneAPI is Intel's spec and doesn't that at least make SubDevice support "reasonable" for one more vendor? Partisanship aside, as a drm co-maintainer, do you really not see the need for non-work-conserving way of distributing GPU as a resource? You recognized the latencies involved (although that's really just part of the story... time sharing is never going to be good enough even if your switching cost is zero.) As a drm co-maintainer, are you suggesting GPU has no place in the HPC use case? Regards, Kenny On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:52 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Kenny Ho <y2kenny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:20 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > My understanding from talking with a few other folks is that > > > the cpumask-style CU-weight thing is not something any other gpu can > > > reasonably support (and we have about 6+ of those in-tree) > > > > How does Intel plan to support the SubDevice API as described in your > > own spec here: > > https://spec.oneapi.com/versions/0.7/oneL0/core/INTRO.html#subdevice-support > > I can't talk about whether future products might or might not support > stuff and in what form exactly they might support stuff or not support > stuff. Or why exactly that's even in the spec there or not. > > Geez > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
