linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Make use of non-dynamic dmabuf in RDMA

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:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:24:57 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...ana.ai>,
        Tomer Tayar <ttayar@...ana.ai>,
        Yossi Leybovich <sleybo@...zon.com>,
        Alexander Matushevsky <matua@...zon.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Jianxin Xiong <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make use of non-dynamic dmabuf in RDMA



Am 01.09.21 um 13:20 schrieb Gal Pressman:
> On 24/08/2021 20:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:27:23AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 8/24/21 2:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 24.08.21 um 11:06 schrieb Gal Pressman:
>>>>> On 23/08/2021 13:43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> Am 21.08.21 um 11:16 schrieb Gal Pressman:
>>>>>>> On 20/08/2021 17:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:58:33PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>> IIUC, we're talking about three different exporter "types":
>>>>>>> - Dynamic with move_notify (requires ODP)
>>>>>>> - Dynamic with revoke_notify
>>>>>>> - Static
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which changes do we need to make the third one work?
>>>>>> Basically none at all in the framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just need to properly use the dma_buf_pin() function when you start using a
>>>>>> buffer (e.g. before you create an attachment) and the dma_buf_unpin() function
>>>>>> after you are done with the DMA-buf.
>>>>> I replied to your previous mail, but I'll ask again.
>>>>> Doesn't the pin operation migrate the memory to host memory?
>>>> Sorry missed your previous reply.
>>>>
>>>> And yes at least for the amdgpu driver we migrate the memory to host
>>>> memory as soon as it is pinned and I would expect that other GPU drivers
>>>> do something similar.
>>> Well...for many topologies, migrating to host memory will result in a
>>> dramatically slower p2p setup. For that reason, some GPU drivers may
>>> want to allow pinning of video memory in some situations.
>>>
>>> Ideally, you've got modern ODP devices and you don't even need to pin.
>>> But if not, and you still hope to do high performance p2p between a GPU
>>> and a non-ODP Infiniband device, then you would need to leave the pinned
>>> memory in vidmem.
>>>
>>> So I think we don't want to rule out that behavior, right? Or is the
>>> thinking more like, "you're lucky that this old non-ODP setup works at
>>> all, and we'll make it work by routing through host/cpu memory, but it
>>> will be slow"?
>> I think it depends on the user, if the user creates memory which is
>> permanently located on the GPU then it should be pinnable in this way
>> without force migration. But if the memory is inherently migratable
>> then it just cannot be pinned in the GPU at all as we can't
>> indefinately block migration from happening eg if the CPU touches it
>> later or something.
> So are we OK with exporters implementing dma_buf_pin() without migrating the memory?

I think so, yes.

> If so, do we still want a move_notify callback for non-dynamic importers? A noop?

Well we could make the move_notify callback optional, e.g. so that you 
get the new locking approach but still pin the buffers manually with 
dma_buf_pin().

Regards,
Christian.