lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Enable Drivers for Intel MIC X100 Coprocessors.
From
Date
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?

Thanks,
Sudeep Dutt

> Pavel
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-16 20:01    [W:0.064 / U:2.952 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site