On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:48:13AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On 5/20/2020 2:34 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:15 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:41:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:41:20PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 08:57:38AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > > > > On 5/18/2020 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 00:12, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Introduction: > > > > > > > > Qualcomm Cloud AI 100 is a PCIe adapter card which contains a dedicated > > > > > > > > SoC ASIC for the purpose of efficently running Deep Learning inference > > > > > > > > workloads in a data center environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offical press release can be found at - > > > > > > > > https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/04/09/qualcomm-brings-power-efficient-artificial-intelligence-inference > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offical product website is - > > > > > > > > https://www.qualcomm.com/products/datacenter-artificial-intelligence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the time of the offical press release, numerious technology news sites > > > > > > > > also covered the product. Doing a search of your favorite site is likely > > > > > > > > to find their coverage of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is our goal to have the kernel driver for the product fully upstream. > > > > > > > > The purpose of this RFC is to start that process. We are still doing > > > > > > > > development (see below), and thus not quite looking to gain acceptance quite > > > > > > > > yet, but now that we have a working driver we beleive we are at the stage > > > > > > > > where meaningful conversation with the community can occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffery, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wondering what the userspace/testing plans for this driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This introduces a new user facing API for a device without pointers to > > > > > > > users or tests for that API. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have daily internal testing, although I don't expect you to take my word > > > > > > for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to get one of these devices into the hands of Linaro, so that > > > > > > it can be put into KernelCI. Similar to other Qualcomm products. I'm trying > > > > > > to convince the powers that be to make this happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding what the community could do on its own, everything but the Linux > > > > > > driver is considered proprietary - that includes the on device firmware and > > > > > > the entire userspace stack. This is a decision above my pay grade. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, that's a decision you are going to have to push upward on, as we > > > > > really can't take this without a working, open, userspace. > > > > > > > > Uh wut. > > > > > > > > So the merge criteria for drivers/accel (atm still drivers/misc but I > > > > thought that was interim until more drivers showed up) isn't actually > > > > "totally-not-a-gpu accel driver without open source userspace". > > > > > > > > Instead it's "totally-not-a-gpu accel driver without open source > > > > userspace" _and_ you have to be best buddies with Greg. Or at least > > > > not be on the naughty company list. Since for habanalabs all you > > > > wanted is a few test cases to exercise the ioctls. Not the entire > > > > userspace. > > > > > > Also, to be fair, I have changed my mind after seeing the mess of > > > complexity that these "ioctls for everyone!" type of pass-through > > > these kinds of drivers are creating. You were right, we need open > > > userspace code in order to be able to properly evaluate and figure out > > > what they are doing is right or not and be able to maintain things over > > > time correctly. > > > > > > So I was wrong, and you were right, my apologies for my previous > > > stubbornness. > > > > Awesome and don't worry, I'm pretty sure we've all been stubborn > > occasionally :-) > > > > From a drivers/gpu pov I think still not quite there since we also > > want to see the compiler for these programmable accelerator thingies. > > But just having a fairly good consensus that "userspace library with > > all the runtime stuff excluding compiler must be open" is a huge step > > forward. Next step may be that we (kernel overall, drivers/gpu will > > still ask for the full thing) have ISA docs for these programmable > > things, so that we can also evaluate that aspect and gauge how many > > security issues there might be. Plus have a fighting chance to fix up > > the security leaks when (post smeltdown I don't really want to > > consider this an if) someone finds a hole in the hw security wall. At > > least in drivers/gpu we historically have a ton of drivers with > > command checkers to validate what userspace wants to run on the > > accelerator thingie. Both in cases where the hw was accidentally too > > strict, and not strict enough. > > I think this provides a pretty clear guidance on what you/the community are > looking for, both now and possibly in the future. > > Thank you. > > From my perspective, it would be really nice if there was something like > Mesa that was a/the standard for these sorts of accelerators. Its somewhat > the wild west, and we've struggled with it. Put a first cut at such a thing out there and see how it goes! Nothing is preventing you from starting such a project, and it would be most welcome as you have seen. good luck, greg k-h
