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]

Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:05 +0200
From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>, 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 Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:12 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>
> 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.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Will check if the people that sent the
previous aborted attempts are still interested in this.

Cheers,

Tomeu

> I think the topic list is at least a good starting point.
>
> Cheers, Sima
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch