[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240306162022.GB28427@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:20:22 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"jack@...e.com" <jack@...e.com>, Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC RESEND 00/16] Split IOMMU DMA mapping operation to two
steps
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:43:28AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I don't think they are so fundamentally different, at least in our
> past conversations I never came out with the idea we should burden the
> driver with two different flows based on what kind of alignment the
> transfer happens to have.
Then we talked past each other..
> At least the RDMA drivers could productively use just a page aligned
> interface. But I didn't think this would make BIO users happy so never
> even thought about it..
page aligned is generally the right thing for the block layer. NVMe
for example already requires that anyway due to PRPs.
> > The total transfer size should just be passed in by the callers and
> > be known, and there should be no offset.
>
> The API needs the caller to figure out the total number of IOVA pages
> it needs, rounding up the CPU ranges to full aligned pages. That
> becomes the IOVA allocation.
Yes, it's a basic align up to the granularity asuming we don't bother
with non-aligned transfers.
>
> > So if we want to efficiently be able to handle these cases we need
> > two APIs in the driver and a good framework to switch between them.
>
> But, what does the non-page-aligned version look like? Doesn't it
> still look basically like this?
I'd just rather have the non-aligned case for those who really need
it be the loop over map single region that is needed for the direct
mapping anyway.
>
> And what is the actual difference if the input is aligned? The caller
> can assume it doesn't need to provide a per-range dma_addr_t during
> unmap.
A per-range dma_addr_t doesn't really make sense for the aligned and
coalesced case.
> It still can't assume the HW programming will be linear due to the P2P
> !ACS support.
>
> And it still has to call an API per-cpu range to actually program the
> IOMMU.
>
> So are they really so different to want different APIs? That strikes
> me as a big driver cost.
To not have to store a dma_address range per CPU range that doesn't
actually get used at all.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists