Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:27:06 -0500
From:   Serguei Sagalovitch <serguei.sagalovitch@....com>
To:     Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.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>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Sander, Ben" <ben.sander@....com>,
        "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....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 2016-11-23 03:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.11.2016 um 08:49 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 01:21:03PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Serguei Sagalovitch
>>>> <serguei.sagalovitch@....com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-11-22 03:10 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Dan Williams 
>>>>>> <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Serguei Sagalovitch
>>>>>>> <serguei.sagalovitch@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I personally like "device-DAX" idea but my concerns are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -  How well it will co-exists with the  DRM infrastructure /
>>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>>>      in part dealing with CPU pointers?
>>>>>>> Inside the kernel a device-DAX range is "just memory" in the sense
>>>>>>> that you can perform pfn_to_page() on it and issue I/O, but the 
>>>>>>> vma is
>>>>>>> not migratable. To be honest I do not know how well that co-exists
>>>>>>> with drm infrastructure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -  How well we will be able to handle case when we need to
>>>>>>>> "move"/"evict"
>>>>>>>>      memory/data to the new location so CPU pointer should 
>>>>>>>> point to the
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> physical location/address
>>>>>>>>       (and may be not in PCI device memory at all)?
>>>>>>> So, device-DAX deliberately avoids support for in-kernel 
>>>>>>> migration or
>>>>>>> overcommit. Those cases are left to the core mm or drm. The 
>>>>>>> device-dax
>>>>>>> interface is for cases where all that is needed is a 
>>>>>>> direct-mapping to
>>>>>>> a statically-allocated physical-address range be it persistent 
>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>> or some other special reserved memory range.
>>>>>> For some of the fancy use-cases (e.g. to be comparable to what 
>>>>>> HMM can
>>>>>> pull off) I think we want all the magic in core mm, i.e. 
>>>>>> migration and
>>>>>> overcommit. At least that seems to be the very strong drive in all
>>>>>> general-purpose gpu abstractions and implementations, where 
>>>>>> memory is
>>>>>> allocated with malloc, and then mapped/moved into vram/gpu address
>>>>>> space through some magic,
>>>>> It is possible that there is other way around: memory is requested 
>>>>> to be
>>>>> allocated and should be kept in vram for  performance reason but due
>>>>> to possible overcommit case we need at least temporally to "move" 
>>>>> such
>>>>> allocation to system memory.
>>>> With migration I meant migrating both ways of course. And with stuff
>>>> like numactl we can also influence where exactly the malloc'ed memory
>>>> is allocated originally, at least if we'd expose the vram range as a
>>>> very special numa node that happens to be far away and not hold any
>>>> cpu cores.
>>> I don't think we should be using numa distance to reverse engineer a
>>> certain allocation behavior.  The latency data should be truthful, but
>>> you're right we'll need a mechanism to keep general purpose
>>> allocations out of that range by default. Btw, strict isolation is
>>> another design point of device-dax, but I think in this case we're
>>> describing something between the two extremes of full isolation and
>>> full compatibility with existing numactl apis.
>> Yes, agreed. My idea with exposing vram sections using numa nodes wasn't
>> to reuse all the existing allocation policies directly, those won't 
>> work.
>> So at boot-up your default numa policy would exclude any vram nodes.
>>
>> But I think (as an -mm layman) that numa gives us a lot of the tools and
>> policy interface that we need to implement what we want for gpus.
>
> Agree completely. From a ten mile high view our GPUs are just command 
> processors with local memory as well .
>
> Basically this is also the whole idea of what AMD is pushing with HSA 
> for a while.
>
> It's just that a lot of problems start to pop up when you look at all 
> the nasty details. For example only part of the GPU memory is usually 
> accessible by the CPU.
>
> So even when numa nodes expose a good foundation for this I think 
> there is still a lot of code to write.
>
> BTW: I should probably start to read into the numa code of the kernel. 
> Any good pointers for that?
I would assume that "page" allocation logic itself should be inside of 
graphics driver due to possible different requirements especially from 
graphics: alignment, etc.

>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>> Wrt isolation: There's a sliding scale of what different users expect,
>> from full auto everything, including migrating pages around if needed to
>> full isolation all seems to be on the table. As long as we keep vram 
>> nodes
>> out of any default allocation numasets, full isolation should be 
>> possible.
>> -Daniel
>
>

Sincerely yours,
Serguei Sagalovitch

Powered by blists - more mailing lists