[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jsgrsQaeewFedUzcD1XLSQ8vQ5Zyr8EoB_5ORUqmL4nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:40:47 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Serguei Sagalovitch <serguei.sagalovitch@....com>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
"Bridgman, John" <John.Bridgman@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
"Sander, Ben" <ben.sander@....com>,
"Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
"Blinzer, Paul" <Paul.Blinzer@....com>,
"Linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <Linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Bart Van Assche
<bart.vanassche@...disk.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 09:13 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>> IMO any memory that has been registered for a P2P transaction should be
>> locked from being evicted. So if there's a get_user_pages call it needs
>> to be pinned until the put_page. The main issue being with the RDMA
>> case: handling an eviction when a chunk of memory has been registered as
>> an MR would be very tricky. The MR may be relied upon by another host
>> and the kernel would have to inform user-space the MR was invalid then
>> user-space would have to tell the remote application.
>
>
> Hello Logan,
>
> Are you aware that the Linux kernel already supports ODP (On Demand Paging)?
> See also the output of git grep -nHi on.demand.paging. See also
> https://www.openfabrics.org/images/eventpresos/workshops2014/DevWorkshop/presos/Tuesday/pdf/04_ODP_update.pdf.
>
I don't think that was designed for the case where the backing memory
is a special/static physical address range rather than anonymous
"System RAM", right?
I think we should handle the graphics P2P concerns separately from the
general P2P-DMA case since the latter does not require the higher
order memory management facilities. Using ZONE_DEVICE/DAX mappings to
avoid changes to every driver that wants to support P2P-DMA separately
from typical DMA still seems the path of least resistance.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists