linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory

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: <21e8099a-d19d-7df0-682d-627d8b81dfde@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:02:49 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory



On 19/04/17 12:32 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:01:39PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Not entirely, it would have to call through the whole process
> including the arch_p2p_cross_segment()..

Hmm, yes. Though it's still not clear what, if anything,
arch_p2p_cross_segment would be doing. In my experience, if you are
going between host bridges, the CPU address (or PCI address -- I'm not
sure which seeing they are the same on my system) would still work fine
-- it just _may_ be a bad idea because of performance.

Similarly if you are crossing via a QPI bus or similar, I'd expect the
CPU address to work fine. But here the performance is even less likely
to be any good.


>          // Try the arch specific helper
> 	 const struct dma_map_ops *comp_ops = get_dma_ops(completer);
> 	 const struct dma_map_ops *init_ops = get_dma_ops(initiator);

So, in this case, what device does the completer point to? The PCI
device or a more specific GPU device? If it's the former, who's
responsible for setting the new dma_ops? Typically the dma_ops are arch
specific but now you'd be adding ones that are tied to hmm or the gpu.

>> I'm not sure I like the name pci_p2p_same_segment. It reads as though
>> it's only checking if the devices are not the same segment.
> 
> Well, that is exactly what it is doing. If it succeeds then the caller
> knows the DMA will not flow outside the segment and no iommu setup/etc
> is required.

It appears to me like it's calculating the DMA address, and the check is
just a side requirement. It reads as though it's only doing the check.

Logan