linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/hmm: HMM API for P2P DMA to device zone pages

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zw9F2uiq6-znYmTk@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:49:30 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Yonatan Maman <ymaman@...dia.com>
Cc: nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, herbst@...hat.com,
	lyude@...hat.com, dakr@...hat.com, airlied@...il.com,
	simona@...ll.ch, jgg@...pe.ca, leon@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	apopple@...dia.com, bskeggs@...dia.com,
	Gal Shalom <GalShalom@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/hmm: HMM API for P2P DMA to device zone pages

The subject does not make sense.  All P2P is on ZONE_DEVICE pages.
It seems like this is about device private memory?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 06:23:45PM +0300, Yonatan Maman wrote:
> From: Yonatan Maman <Ymaman@...dia.com>
> 
> hmm_range_fault() natively triggers a page fault on device private
> pages, migrating them to RAM.

That "natively" above doesn't make sense to me.

> In some cases, such as with RDMA devices,
> the migration overhead between the device (e.g., GPU) and the CPU, and
> vice-versa, significantly damages performance. Thus, enabling Peer-to-

s/damages/degrades/

> Peer (P2P) DMA access for device private page might be crucial for
> minimizing data transfer overhead.
> 
> This change introduces an API to support P2P connections for device
> private pages by implementing the following:

"This change.. " or "This patch.." is pointless, just explain what you
are doing.

> 
>  - Leveraging the struct pagemap_ops for P2P Page Callbacks. This
>    callback involves mapping the page to MMIO and returning the
>    corresponding PCI_P2P page.

While P2P uses the same underlying PCIe TLPs as MMIO, it is not
MMIO by definition, as memory mapped I/O is by definition about
the CPU memory mappping so that load and store instructions cause
the I/O.  It also uses very different concepts in Linux.

>  - Utilizing hmm_range_fault for Initializing P2P Connections. The API

There is no concept of a "connection" in PCIe dta transfers.

>    also adds the HMM_PFN_REQ_TRY_P2P flag option for the
>    hmm_range_fault caller to initialize P2P. If set, hmm_range_fault
>    attempts initializing the P2P connection first, if the owner device
>    supports P2P, using p2p_page. In case of failure or lack of support,
>    hmm_range_fault will continue with the regular flow of migrating the
>    page to RAM.

What is the need for the flag?  As far as I can tell from reading
the series, the P2P mapping is entirely transparent to the callers
of hmm_range_fault.

> +	/*
> +	 * Used for private (un-addressable) device memory only. Return a
> +	 * corresponding struct page, that can be mapped to device
> +	 * (e.g using dma_map_page)
> +	 */
> +	struct page *(*get_dma_page_for_device)(struct page *private_page);

We are talking about P2P memory here.  How do you manage to get a page
that dma_map_page can be used on?  All P2P memory needs to use the P2P
aware dma_map_sg as the pages for P2P memory are just fake zone device
pages.


> +		 * P2P for supported pages, and according to caller request
> +		 * translate the private page to the match P2P page if it fails
> +		 * continue with the regular flow
> +		 */
> +		if (is_device_private_entry(entry)) {
> +			get_dma_page_handler =
> +				pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry)
> +					->pgmap->ops->get_dma_page_for_device;
> +			if ((hmm_vma_walk->range->default_flags &
> +			    HMM_PFN_REQ_ALLOW_P2P) &&
> +			    get_dma_page_handler) {
> +				dma_page = get_dma_page_handler(
> +					pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry));

This is really messy.  You probably really want to share a branch
with the private page handling for the owner so that you only need
a single is_device_private_entry and can use a local variable for
to shortcut finding the page.  Probably best done with a little helper:

Then  this becomes:

static bool hmm_handle_device_private(struct hmm_range *range,
		swp_entry_t entry, unsigned long *hmm_pfn)
{
	struct page *page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
	struct dev_pagemap *pgmap = page->pgmap;

	if (pgmap->owner == range->dev_private_owner) {
		*hmm_pfn = swp_offset_pfn(entry);
		goto found;
	}

	if (pgmap->ops->get_dma_page_for_device) {
		*hmm_pfn =
			page_to_pfn(pgmap->ops->get_dma_page_for_device(page));
		goto found;
	}

	return false;

found:
	*hmm_pfn |= HMM_PFN_VALID
	if (is_writable_device_private_entry(entry))
		*hmm_pfn |= HMM_PFN_WRITE;
	return true;
}

which also makes it clear that returning a page from the method is
not that great, a PFN might work a lot better, e.g.

	unsigned long (*device_private_dma_pfn)(struct page *page);