linux-kernel - Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZkyPoIXBeBUqFJ48@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:12:16 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@...il.com>,
	Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
	Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:46:01AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to use the chance at the next Plumbers to discuss the
> present challenges related to ML accelerators in mainline.
> 
> I'm myself more oriented towards edge-oriented deployments, and don't
> know enough about how these accelerators are being used in the cloud
> (and maybe desktop?) to tell if there is enough overlap to warrant a
> common BoF.
> 
> In any case, these are the topics I would like to discuss, some
> probably more relevant to the edge than to the cloud or desktop:
> 
> * What is stopping vendors from mainlining their drivers?
> 
> * How could we make it easier for them?
> 
> * Userspace API: how close are we from a common API that we can ask
> userspace drivers to implement? What can be done to further this goal?
> 
> * Automated testing: DRM CI can be used, but would be good to have a
> common test suite to run there. This is probably dependent on a common
> userspace API.
> 
> * Other shared userspace infrastructure (compiler, execution,
> synchronization, virtualization, ...)
> 
> * Firmware-mediated IP: what should we do about it, if anything?
> 
> * Any standing issues in DRM infra (GEM, gpu scheduler, DMABuf, etc)
> that are hurting accel drivers?
> 
> What do people think, should we have a drivers/accel-wide BoF at
> Plumbers? If so, what other topics should we have in the agenda?

Yeah sounds good, and I'll try to at least attend lpc this year since it's
rather close ... Might be good to explicitly ping teams of merged and
in-flight drivers we have in accel already.

I think the topic list is at least a good starting point.

Cheers, Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch