On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:59 -0700, Sudeep Dutt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Hi! > > > > > > Since it is a PCIe card, it does not have the ability to host hardware > > > > > devices for networking, storage and console. We provide these devices > > > > > on X100 coprocessors thus enabling a self-bootable equivalent environment > > > > > for applications. A key benefit of our solution is that it leverages > > > > > the standard virtio framework for network, disk and console devices, > > > > > though in our case the virtio framework is used across a PCIe bus. > > > > > > > > Interesting... > > > > > > > > > Documentation/mic/mic_overview.txt | 48 + > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/.gitignore | 1 + > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/Makefile | 20 + > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/micctrl | 157 +++ > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/mpss | 246 +++++ > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/mpssd.c | 1732 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/mpssd.h | 105 +++ > > > > > Documentation/mic/mpssd/sysfs.c | 108 +++ > > > > > drivers/misc/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > > drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/Kconfig | 56 ++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/Makefile | 6 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/Makefile | 11 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_common.h | 43 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_debugfs.c | 139 +++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_debugfs.h | 40 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_device.c | 311 ++++++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_device.h | 106 +++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_virtio.c | 643 +++++++++++++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_virtio.h | 79 ++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_x100.c | 253 +++++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/card/mic_x100.h | 53 ++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/common/mic_device.h | 85 ++ > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/host/Makefile | 13 + > > > > > drivers/misc/mic/host/mic_boot.c | 181 ++++ > > > > > > > > So... there are basically separate computers running on PCIe card > > > > plugged into host computer, right? > > > > > > > > > > They are PCIe form factor Coprocessors plugged into the host. > > > > > > > Maybe we should have something more promintent than drivers/misc for > > > > this, then? Like drivers/multicomputer? > > > > > > > > > > multicomputer" is an interesting name for these kind of devices but has > > > several issues: > > > a) The definition I found for multicomputer online was "A computer made > > > up of several computers. The term generally refers to an architecture in > > > which each processor has its own memory rather than multiple processors > > > with a shared memory. A multicore computer, although it sounds similar, > > > would not be a multicomputer because the multiple cores share a common > > > memory." Intel MIC X100 devices typically have upto 244 CPUs (61 cores) > > > on the card sharing common card memory so multicomputer would not be > > > accurate based on this definition. > > > > Well... you have your "host" computer, and than (potentially several) > > Intel MIC devices, which are basically separate computers. So X100 is > > not a multicomputer, but machine with several X100 cards certainly is > > multicomputer. > > > > > b) X100 MIC devices have always been referred to Coprocessors and never > > > as multicomputers in product specifications @ > > > http://software.intel.com/en-us/mic-developer > > > > Coprocessor sounds like i487, but why not. > > > > > c) multicomputer is a very long path name. > > > > Agreed it is long. drivers/coproc? > > > > [I guess we'll get similar hardware from different vendors in > > future. It would make sense having it at common place.] > > > > drivers/coproc is a good, short suggestion. Intel MIC X100 devices are > likely unique since they can run a general purpose OS in a PCIe form > factor Coprocessor plugged to the host. This might result in MIC > potentially being the only driver under drivers/coproc till another > general purpose Coprocessor comes along. Is it recommended to create a > new driver directory (drivers/coproc) in anticipation of future devices? > Do you think it would be better if we revive this discussion, once > another Coprocessor with similar capabilities comes along? Creating a new driver directory for one device that may never have a similar device to share that directory seems a bit overkill. git mv is simple and quick to rearrange the directory structure later if the need arises (with the appropriate Kconfig tweakage). -PJ ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
