[PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem

[Kenny Ho]

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 at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Kenny Ho <y2kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:20 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> 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