> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com] > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 1:26 PM > To: Jerome Glisse > Cc: Sagalovitch, Serguei; Jerome Glisse; Deucher, Alexander; 'linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org'; 'linux-r...@vger.kernel.org'; 'linux- > nvd...@lists.01.org'; 'linux-me...@vger.kernel.org'; 'dri- > de...@lists.freedesktop.org'; 'linux-...@vger.kernel.org'; Kuehling, Felix; > Blinzer, Paul; Koenig, Christian; Suthikulpanit, Suravee; Sander, Ben; > h...@infradead.org; Zhou, David(ChunMing); Yu, Qiang > Subject: Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:56:30AM -0500, Serguei Sagalovitch wrote: > > > On 2017-01-05 08:58 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 06:23:52PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I still don't understand what you driving at - you've said in both > > > > > > > cases a user VMA exists. > > > > > > In the former case no, there is no VMA directly but if you want one > than > > > > > > a device can provide one. But such VMA is useless as CPU access is > not > > > > > > expected. > > > > > I disagree it is useless, the VMA is going to be necessary to support > > > > > upcoming things like CAPI, you need it to support O_DIRECT from the > > > > > filesystem, DPDK, etc. This is why I am opposed to any model that is > > > > > not VMA based for setting up RDMA - that is shorted sighted and > does > > > > > not seem to reflect where the industry is going. > > > > > > > > > > So focus on having VMA backed by actual physical memory that > covers > > > > > your GPU objects and ask how do we wire up the '__user *' to the > DMA > > > > > API in the best way so the DMA API still has enough information to > > > > > setup IOMMUs and whatnot. > > > > I am talking about 2 different thing. Existing hardware and API where > you > > > > _do not_ have a vma and you do not need one. This is just > > > > > existing stuff. > > > > I do not understand why you assume that existing API doesn't need one. > > > I would say that a lot of __existing__ user level API and their support in > > > kernel (especially outside of graphics domain) assumes that we have vma > and > > > deal with __user * pointers. > > +1 > > > Well i am thinking to GPUDirect here. Some of GPUDirect use case do not > have > > vma (struct vm_area_struct) associated with them they directly apply to > GPU > > object that aren't expose to CPU. Yes some use case have vma for share > buffer. > > Lets stop talkind about GPU direct. Today we can't even make VMA > pointing at a PCI bar work properly in the kernel - lets start there > please. People can argue over other options once that is done. > > > For HMM plan is to restrict to ODP and either to replace ODP with HMM or > change > > ODP to not use get_user_pages_remote() but directly fetch informations > from > > CPU page table. Everything else stay as it is. I posted patchset to replace > > ODP with HMM in the past. > > Make a generic API for all of this and you'd have my vote.. > > IMHO, you must support basic pinning semantics - that is necessary to > support generic short lived DMA (eg filesystem, etc). That hardware > can clearly do that if it can support ODP.
We would definitely like to have support for hardware that can't handle page faults gracefully. Alex _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
