[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7163af93-2f37-a8b6-986a-3cb2e62bee29@deltatee.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:10:12 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] nvmet: Optionally use PCI P2P memory
> Wouldn't it all be simpler if the p2p_dev resolution would be private
> to the namespace?
>
> So is adding some all the namespaces in a subsystem must comply to
> using p2p? Seems a little bit harsh if its not absolutely needed. Would
> be nice to export a subsystems between two ports (on two HCAs, across
> NUMA nodes) where the home node (primary path) would use p2p and
> failover would use host memory...
>
> Can you help me understand why this is absolutely not feasible?
Yes, it would simplify things. However, as best as I can tell, when we
allocate memory we don't know what namespace it will be used for. If
there is a way, I could probably rework it so there's a P2P device per
namespace.
Can you show me how we'd know the namespace to use in
nvmet_rdma_map_sgl_keyed()?
Thanks,
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists