[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220120135602.GA11223@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:56:02 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Phyr Starter
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 08:41:26PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Finally, it may be possible to stop using scatterlist to describe the
> > input to the DMA-mapping operation. We may be able to get struct
> > scatterlist down to just dma_address and dma_length, with chaining
> > handled through an enclosing struct.
>
> Can you talk about this some more? IMHO one of the key properties of
> the scatterlist is that it can hold huge amounts of pages without
> having to do any kind of special allocation due to the chaining.
>
> The same will be true of the phyr idea right?
No special allocations as in no vmalloc? The chaining still has to
allocate memory using a mempool.
Anyway, to explain my idea which is very similar but not identical to
the one willy has:
- on the input side to dma mapping the bio_vecs (or phyrs) are chained
as bios or whatever the containing structure is. These already exist
and have infrastructure at least in the block layer
- on the output side I plan for two options:
1) we have a sane IOMMU and everyting will be coalesced into a
single dma_range. This requires setting the block layer
merge boundary to match the IOMMU page size, but that is
a very good thing to do anyway.
2) we have no IOMMU (or a weird one) and get one output dma_range
per input bio_vec. We'd eithe have to support chaining or use
vmalloc or huge numbers of entries.
> If you limit to that scenario then we can be more optimal because
> things like byte granular offsets and size in the interior pages don't
> need to exist. Every interior chunk is always aligned to its order and
> we only need to record the order.
The block layer does not small offsets. Direct I/O can often be
512 byte aligned, and some other passthrough commands can have even
smaller alignment, although I don't think we ever go below 4-byte
alignment anywhere in the block layer.
> IMHO storage density here is quite important, we end up having to keep
> this stuff around for a long time.
If we play these tricks it won't be general purpose enough to get rid
of the existing scatterlist usage.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists