On 5/20/2020 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
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.
I wish. I'll float the idea, but don't hold your breath.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
