Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: Yes, it can, via MAP_FIXED. There are lots of fun tricks you can play using that. You're missing the point. Normal users (i.e., MPI users) don't do that. They call malloc() and they get what they get. The whole point of upper-layer APIs is that they hide all the network stuff from the application programmer. Verbs is *hard* for the mere mortal to program. MPI can do a great deal to hide the complexities of verbs from app developers, but one major concession that MPI (intentionally) made is that the *application provides the buffer*, not MPI. Hence, we're stuck with what buffers the user passes in. This is the root of the whole MPI has a registration cache issue. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:53:24PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: Someone has to finish the ummunotify rewrite Roland started. Realistically MPI is going to be the only user, can someone from the MPI world do this? 1. I tried to ask what needed to be done at the beginning of this thread and didn't get much of an answer. AFAIK, only Roland knows the state of his rewrite, hopefully he will comment.. I told you everything I know about what happened with the last attempt :| 2. We've (all) been asking for this functionality *for years*; I even helped with the first implementation. Can't the verbs community finish it? :-) MPI is probably your biggest customer, after all... There isn't much of a verbs community, to be honest. Unless you can get a vendor to commit resources to the project, I wouldn't expect much. I have no doubt that ODP solves problems for someone. It just doesn't seem to solve the very-long-standing MPI issues with verbs and registration caches. As we've discussed it helps write a registration cache. The 'All of address space' varient that Haggai mentioned should also be very interesting. But this is all future stuff. FWIW, I agree with you that ummunot is something MPI really needs to function. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Liran Liss lir...@mellanox.com wrote: Register all address space is the moral equivalent of not having userspace registration, so let's talk about it in those terms. Specifically, there's a subtle difference between: a) telling verbs to register (0...2^64) -- Which is weird because it tells verbs to register memory that isn't in my address space Another way to look at it is specify IO access permissions for address space ranges. This could be useful to implement a buffer pool to be used for a specific MR only, yet still map/unmap memory within this pool on the fly to optimize physical memory utilization. In this case, you would provide smaller ranges than 2^64... Hmm; I'm not sure I understand. Userspace doesn't control what virtual addresses it gets back from mmap/etc. So how is what you're talking about different than regular/reactive memory registration? (vs. pre-emptively registering a whole pile of memory that doesn't exist yet) Specifically: I'm confused because you said you could (preemptively) register some small regions (that assumedly don't yet exist in your virtual memory address space) and use them as memory pools. But given that userspace doesn't control its virtual address ranges, I'm not sure how that's useful. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:10:57PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: Another way to look at it is specify IO access permissions for address space ranges. This could be useful to implement a buffer pool to be used for a specific MR only, yet still map/unmap memory within this pool on the fly to optimize physical memory utilization. In this case, you would provide smaller ranges than 2^64... Hmm; I'm not sure I understand. Userspace doesn't control what virtual addresses it gets back from mmap/etc. Yes, it can, via MAP_FIXED. There are lots of fun tricks you can play using that. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: I agree that pushing all registration issues out of the application and (somewhere) into the verbs stack would be a nice solution. Well, it creates a mess in another sense, because now you've lost context. When your MPI goes to do a 1byte send the kernel may well prefetch a few megabytes of page tables, whereas an implementation in userspace still has the context and can say, no I don't need that.. It seems like there are Big Problems on either side of this problem (userspace and kernel). I thought that ummunotify was a good balance between the two -- MPI kept its registration caches (which are annoying, but we have long-since understood that *someone* has to maintain them), but it gets a bulletproof way to keep them coherent. That is what is missing in today's solutions: bulletproofness (plus we have to use the horrid glibc malloc hooks, which are deprecated and are going away). That being said, everyone I've talked to about ODP finds it very, very strange that the kernel would keep memory registrations around for memory that is no longer part of a process. Not only does it MRs are badly named. They are not 'memory registrations'. They are 'address registrations'. Don't conflat address === memory in your head, then it seems weird :) The memory the address space points to is flexible. The address space is tied to the lifetime of the process. It doesn't matter if there is no memory mapped to the address space, the address space is still there. Liran had a good example. You can register address space and then use mmap/munmap/MAP_FIXED to mess around with where it points to ...but this is not how people write applications. Real apps use malloc (and some direct mmap, and perhaps even some shared memory). They don't pay attention to the contiguiousness (is that a word?) of memory/addresses in the large scale. To be clear: the most tightly bound codes *do* actually care about cache hits and locality, but that's in the small scale -- not in the large scale. I would find it hard to believe that a real code would pay attention to where in its address range a given malloc() returns, for example. *That's* what makes this whole concept weird. It seems like this is a perfect kernel space concept, but is quite foreign to userspace developers. A practical example of using this would be to avoid the need to send scatter buffer pointers to the remote. The remote writes into a memory ring and the ring is made 'endless' by clever use of remapping. I don't understand -- please explain your example a bit more...? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:18:34PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: Well, it creates a mess in another sense, because now you've lost context. When your MPI goes to do a 1byte send the kernel may well prefetch a few megabytes of page tables, whereas an implementation in userspace still has the context and can say, no I don't need that.. It seems like there are Big Problems on either side of this problem (userspace and kernel). I thought that ummunotify was a good balance between the two -- MPI kept its registration caches (which are annoying, but we have long-since understood that *someone* has to maintain them), but it gets a bulletproof way to keep them coherent. That is what is missing in today's solutions: bulletproofness (plus we have to use the horrid glibc malloc hooks, which are deprecated and are going away). Ditto. Someone has to finish the ummunotify rewrite Roland started. Realistically MPI is going to be the only user, can someone from the MPI world do this? It doesn't matter if there is no memory mapped to the address space, the address space is still there. Liran had a good example. You can register address space and then use mmap/munmap/MAP_FIXED to mess around with where it points to ...but this is not how people write applications. Real apps use malloc (and some direct mmap, and perhaps even some shared memory). *shrug* I used MAP_FIXED for some RDMA regions in my IB verbs apps, specifically to create specalized high-performance memory structures. It isn't a general purpose technique for non-RDMA apps - but especially when combined with ODP it is useful in some places. A practical example of using this would be to avoid the need to send scatter buffer pointers to the remote. The remote writes into a memory ring and the ring is made 'endless' by clever use of remapping. I don't understand -- please explain your example a bit more...? You have a memory pool. There are two mappings to this physical memory, one for the CPU to use, one for RDMA to use. The RDMA mapping is a linear ring, the remote just spews linearly via RDMA WRITE. When messages arrive the CPU xlates the RDMA ring virtual address to the CPU address, and accesses the memory from there. It then finds a free block in the memory pool and remaps it into the RDMA pool and tells the remote that there is more free memory. From the perspective of the remote this creates an endless, apparently linear, ring. When the CPU is done with its memory it adds it back to free block pool. At the start of time the RDMA ring maps 1:1 to the CPU pool. As xfers happen the RDMA rings maps non-linearly depending on when the CPU is done with the memory. There are lots of details to make this work, but you avoid sending s/g lists, and generally make communication more asynchronous. s/g lists are expensive. A 1GB ring requires nearly 2MB to describe with s/g lists, and a 40GB nic can turn that ring over 4 times per second! You can do something similar with sends, but sends have to pre-size buffers, wheras this scheme lets you send any size message with optimal memory usage. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Status of ummunot branch?
Here are a few more clarifications: 1) ODP MRs can cover address ranges that do not have a mapping at registration time. This means that MPI can register in advance, say, the lower GB's of the address space, covering malloc's primary arena. Thus, there is no need to adjust to each increase in sbrk(). Similarly, you can register the stack region up to the maximum size of the stack. The stack can grow and shrink, and ODP will always use the current mapping. 2) Virtual addresses covered by an ODP MR must have a valid mapping when they are is accessed (during send/receive WQE processing or as a target of an RDMA/atomic operation). So, Jeff, the only thing you need to make sure is that you don't free() a buffer that you posted and haven't got a completion yet - but I guess that this is something that you already do... :) For example, in the following scenario: a. reg_mr(first GB of the address space) b. p = malloc() c. post_send(p) d. poll for completion e. free(p) f. p = malloc() g. post_send(p) h. poll for completion i. free(p) (c) may incur a page fault (if not pre-fetched or faulted-in by another thread). (e) happens after the completion, so it is guaranteed that (c), when processed by HW, uses the correct application buffer with the current virt-to-phys mapping (at HW access time) The reallocation may or may not change the virtual-to-physical mappings. The message may or may not be paged out (ODP does not hold a reference on the page). In any case, when (g) is processed, it always uses the current mapping. --Liran -Original Message- From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jason Gunthorpe Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 2:58 AM To: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Cc: Haggai Eran; Or Gerlitz; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; Shachar Raindel Subject: Re: Status of ummunot branch? On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:59:43PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: I don't think this covers other memory regions, like those added via mmap, right? We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. ODP without 'register all address space' changes the nature of the problem, and fixes only one problem. You do need to cache registrations, and all the tuning parameters (how much do I cache, how long do I hold it for, etc, etc) all still apply. What goes away (is fixed) is the need for intercepts and the need to purge address space from the cache because the backing registration has become non-coherent/invalid. Registrations are always coherent/valid with ODP. This cache, and the associated optimization problem, can never go away. With a 'register all of memory' semantic the cache can move into the kernel, but the performance implication and overheads are all still present, just migrated. 2. MPI still has to intercept (at least) munmap(). Curious to know what for? If you want to prune registrations (ie to reduce memory footprint), this can be done lazyily at any time (eg in a background thread or something). Read /proc/self/maps and purge all the registrations pointing to unmapped memory. Similar to garbage collection. There is no harm in keeping a registration for a long period, except for the memory footprint in the kernel. 3. Having mmap/malloc/etc. return new memory that may already be registered because of a prior memory registration and subsequent munmap/free/etc. is just plain weird. Worse, if we re-register it, ref counts could go such that the actual registration will never actually expire until the process dies (which could lead to processes with abnormally large memory footprints, because they never actually let go of memory because it's still registered). This is entirely on the registration cache implementation to sort out, there are lots of performance/memory trade offs. It is only weird when you think about it in terms of buffers. memory registration has to do with address space, not buffers. What MPI wants is: 1. verbs for ummunotify-like functionality 2. non-blocking memory registration verbs; poll the cq to know when it has completed To me, ODP with an additional 'register all address space' semantic, plus an asynchronous prefetch does both of these for you. 1. ummunotify functionality and caching is now in the kernel, under ODP. RDMA access to an 'all of memory' registration always does the right thing. 2. asynchronous prefetch (eg as a work request) triggers ODP and kernel actions to ready a subset of memory for RDMA, including all the work that memory registration does today (get_user_pages, COW break, etc) Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. ODP without 'register all address space' changes the nature of the problem, and fixes only one problem. I agree that pushing all registration issues out of the application and (somewhere) into the verbs stack would be a nice solution. You do need to cache registrations, and all the tuning parameters (how much do I cache, how long do I hold it for, etc, etc) all still apply. What goes away (is fixed) is the need for intercepts and the need to purge address space from the cache because the backing registration has become non-coherent/invalid. Registrations are always coherent/valid with ODP. This cache, and the associated optimization problem, can never go away. With a 'register all of memory' semantic the cache can move into the kernel, but the performance implication and overheads are all still present, just migrated. Good summary; and you corrected some of my mistakes -- thanks. That being said, everyone I've talked to about ODP finds it very, very strange that the kernel would keep memory registrations around for memory that is no longer part of a process. Not only does it lead to the new memory is magically already registered semantic that I find weird, it's just plain *odd* for the kernel to maintain state for something that doesn't exist any more. It feels dirty. Sidenote: I was just informed today that the current way MPI implementations implement registration cache coherence (glibc malloc hooks) has been deprecated and will be removed from glibc (http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-05/msg00103.html). This really puts on the pressure to find a new / proper solution. What MPI wants is: 1. verbs for ummunotify-like functionality 2. non-blocking memory registration verbs; poll the cq to know when it has completed To me, ODP with an additional 'register all address space' semantic, plus an asynchronous prefetch does both of these for you. 1. ummunotify functionality and caching is now in the kernel, under ODP. RDMA access to an 'all of memory' registration always does the right thing. Register all address space is the moral equivalent of not having userspace registration, so let's talk about it in those terms. Specifically, there's a subtle difference between: a) telling verbs to register (0...2^64) -- Which is weird because it tells verbs to register memory that isn't in my address space b) telling verbs that the app doesn't want to handle registration -- How that gets implemented is not important (from userspace's point of view) -- if the kernel chooses to implement that by registering non-existent memory, that's the kernel's problem I guess I'm arguing that registering non-existent memory is not the Right Thing. Regardless of what solution is devised for registered memory management (ummunotify, ODP, or something else), a non-blocking verb for registering memory would still be a Very Useful Thing. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Status of ummunot branch?
-Original Message- From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:50 PM To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Haggai Eran; Or Gerlitz; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; Shachar Raindel Subject: Re: Status of ummunot branch? On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. ODP without 'register all address space' changes the nature of the problem, and fixes only one problem. I agree that pushing all registration issues out of the application and (somewhere) into the verbs stack would be a nice solution. You do need to cache registrations, and all the tuning parameters (how much do I cache, how long do I hold it for, etc, etc) all still apply. What goes away (is fixed) is the need for intercepts and the need to purge address space from the cache because the backing registration has become non-coherent/invalid. Registrations are always coherent/valid with ODP. This cache, and the associated optimization problem, can never go away. With a 'register all of memory' semantic the cache can move into the kernel, but the performance implication and overheads are all still present, just migrated. Good summary; and you corrected some of my mistakes -- thanks. That being said, everyone I've talked to about ODP finds it very, very strange that the kernel would keep memory registrations around for memory that is no longer part of a process. Not only does it lead to the new memory is magically already registered semantic that I find weird, it's just plain *odd* for the kernel to maintain state for something that doesn't exist any more. It feels dirty. Sidenote: I was just informed today that the current way MPI implementations implement registration cache coherence (glibc malloc hooks) has been deprecated and will be removed from glibc (http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-05/msg00103.html). This really puts on the pressure to find a new / proper solution. What MPI wants is: 1. verbs for ummunotify-like functionality 2. non-blocking memory registration verbs; poll the cq to know when it has completed To me, ODP with an additional 'register all address space' semantic, plus an asynchronous prefetch does both of these for you. 1. ummunotify functionality and caching is now in the kernel, under ODP. RDMA access to an 'all of memory' registration always does the right thing. Register all address space is the moral equivalent of not having userspace registration, so let's talk about it in those terms. Specifically, there's a subtle difference between: a) telling verbs to register (0...2^64) -- Which is weird because it tells verbs to register memory that isn't in my address space Another way to look at it is specify IO access permissions for address space ranges. This could be useful to implement a buffer pool to be used for a specific MR only, yet still map/unmap memory within this pool on the fly to optimize physical memory utilization. In this case, you would provide smaller ranges than 2^64... b) telling verbs that the app doesn't want to handle registration -- How that gets implemented is not important (from userspace's point of view) -- if the kernel chooses to implement that by registering non-existent memory, that's the kernel's problem I guess I'm arguing that registering non-existent memory is not the Right Thing. Regardless of what solution is devised for registered memory management (ummunotify, ODP, or something else), a non-blocking verb for registering memory would still be a Very Useful Thing. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 02:49:24PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. ODP without 'register all address space' changes the nature of the problem, and fixes only one problem. I agree that pushing all registration issues out of the application and (somewhere) into the verbs stack would be a nice solution. Well, it creates a mess in another sense, because now you've lost context. When your MPI goes to do a 1byte send the kernel may well prefetch a few megabytes of page tables, whereas an implementation in userspace still has the context and can say, no I don't need that.. Maybe a prefetch WR can restore the lost context, donno.. That being said, everyone I've talked to about ODP finds it very, very strange that the kernel would keep memory registrations around for memory that is no longer part of a process. Not only does it MRs are badly named. They are not 'memory registrations'. They are 'address registrations'. Don't conflat address === memory in your head, then it seems weird :) The memory the address space points to is flexible. The address space is tied to the lifetime of the process. It doesn't matter if there is no memory mapped to the address space, the address space is still there. Liran had a good example. You can register address space and then use mmap/munmap/MAP_FIXED to mess around with where it points to. A practical example of using this would be to avoid the need to send scatter buffer pointers to the remote. The remote writes into a memory ring and the ring is made 'endless' by clever use of remapping. Register all address space is the moral equivalent of not having userspace registration, so let's talk about it in those terms. Specifically, there's a subtle difference between: a) telling verbs to register (0...2^64) b) telling verbs that the app doesn't want to handle registration I agree, a verb to do 'B' is a cleaner choice than trying to cram this kind of API into A... Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquy...@cisco.com wrote: I don't think this covers other memory regions, like those added via mmap, right? We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. 1. MPI still has to have a memory registration cache, because ibv_reg_mr(0...sbrk()) doesn't cover the stack or mmap'ed memory, etc. 2. MPI still has to intercept (at least) munmap(). 3. Having mmap/malloc/etc. return new memory that may already be registered because of a prior memory registration and subsequent munmap/free/etc. is just plain weird. Worse, if we re-register it, ref counts could go such that the actual registration will never actually expire until the process dies (which could lead to processes with abnormally large memory footprints, because they never actually let go of memory because it's still registered). 4. Even if MPI checks the value of sbrk() and re-registers (0...sbrk()) when sbrk() increases, this would seem to create a lot of work for the kernel -- which is both slow and synchronous. Example: a = malloc(5GB); MPI_Send(a, 1, MPI_CHAR, ...); // MPI sends 1 byte Then the MPI_Send of 1 byte will have to pay the cost of registering 5GB of new memory. - Unless we understand this wrong (and there's definitely a chance that we do!), it doesn't sound like ODP solves anything for MPI. Especially since HPC applications almost never swap (in fact, swap is usually disabled in HPC environments). What MPI wants is: 1. verbs for ummunotify-like functionality 2. non-blocking memory registration verbs; poll the cq to know when it has completed -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:59:43PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: I don't think this covers other memory regions, like those added via mmap, right? We talked about this at the MPI Forum this week; it doesn't seem like ODP fixes any MPI problems. ODP without 'register all address space' changes the nature of the problem, and fixes only one problem. You do need to cache registrations, and all the tuning parameters (how much do I cache, how long do I hold it for, etc, etc) all still apply. What goes away (is fixed) is the need for intercepts and the need to purge address space from the cache because the backing registration has become non-coherent/invalid. Registrations are always coherent/valid with ODP. This cache, and the associated optimization problem, can never go away. With a 'register all of memory' semantic the cache can move into the kernel, but the performance implication and overheads are all still present, just migrated. 2. MPI still has to intercept (at least) munmap(). Curious to know what for? If you want to prune registrations (ie to reduce memory footprint), this can be done lazyily at any time (eg in a background thread or something). Read /proc/self/maps and purge all the registrations pointing to unmapped memory. Similar to garbage collection. There is no harm in keeping a registration for a long period, except for the memory footprint in the kernel. 3. Having mmap/malloc/etc. return new memory that may already be registered because of a prior memory registration and subsequent munmap/free/etc. is just plain weird. Worse, if we re-register it, ref counts could go such that the actual registration will never actually expire until the process dies (which could lead to processes with abnormally large memory footprints, because they never actually let go of memory because it's still registered). This is entirely on the registration cache implementation to sort out, there are lots of performance/memory trade offs. It is only weird when you think about it in terms of buffers. memory registration has to do with address space, not buffers. What MPI wants is: 1. verbs for ummunotify-like functionality 2. non-blocking memory registration verbs; poll the cq to know when it has completed To me, ODP with an additional 'register all address space' semantic, plus an asynchronous prefetch does both of these for you. 1. ummunotify functionality and caching is now in the kernel, under ODP. RDMA access to an 'all of memory' registration always does the right thing. 2. asynchronous prefetch (eg as a work request) triggers ODP and kernel actions to ready a subset of memory for RDMA, including all the work that memory registration does today (get_user_pages, COW break, etc) Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote:
Haggai: A verb to resize a registration would probably be a helpful
step. MPI could maintain one registration that covers the sbrk
region and one registration that covers the heap, much easier than
searching tables and things.
That's a nice idea. Even without this verb, I think it is possible to
develop a registration cache that covers those regions though. When you
find out you have some part of your region not registered, you can
register a new, larger region that covers everything you need. For new
operations you only use the newer region. Once the previous, smaller
region is not used, you de-register it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying I should do something like this:
MPI_Init() {
// the first MPI function invoked
mpi_sbrk_save = sbrk();
ibv_reg_mr(..., 0, mpi_sbrk_save, ...);
...
}
MPI_Send(buffer, ...) {
if (mpi_sbrk_save != sbrk())
mpi_sbrk_save = sbrk();
ibv_rereg_mr(..., 0, mpi_sbrk_save, ...);
...
}
I don't think this covers other memory regions, like those added via mmap,
right?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 04/06/2013 20:04, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: Thus, I assume, on-demand allows pages that are 'absent' in the larger page table to generate faults to the CPU? Yes, that's correct. So how does lifetime work here? - Can you populate the larger page table as soon as registration happens, relying on mmu notifier and HCA faults to keep it consistent? We prefer not to keep the entire page table in sync, since we want to allow registration of larger portions of the virtual address space, and much of that memory isn't needed by the HCA. - After a fault happens are the faulted pages pinned? After a page fault happens the faulted pages are mapped in using get_user_pages, but they are immediately released. How does lifetime work here? What happens when the kernel wants to evict a page that has currently ongoing RDMA? If the kernel tries to evict a page that is currently ongoing RDMA, the driver will update the HCA before the kernel can free the page. If the RDMA operation is still ongoing, it will trigger a page fault. What happens if user space munmaps something while the remote is doing RDMA to it? We want to allow the user to register memory areas that are unmapped. We only require that the user have some VMA backing the addresses used for RDMA operations, during the course of these operations. If the user munmaps something in the middle of an RDMA operation, this will trigger a page fault, which will in turn close the QP doing the operation with an error. - If I recall the presentation, the fault-in operation was very slow, what is the cause for this? Page faults involve stopping the QP, reading the WQE to get the page ranges needed, bringing the pages to memory using get_user_pages, updating the HCA's page table (and flushing its caches) and resuming the QP. With short messages, the commands sent to the device are dominant, while with larger messages, get_user_pages becomes dominant. He was very concerned about what the size of the TLB on the HCA, and therefore what the actual run-time behavior would be for sending around large messages via MPI -- i.e., would RDMA'ing 1GB messages now incur this HCA-must-reload-its-TLB-and-therefore-incur-RNR-NAKs behavior? We have a mechanism to prefetch the pages needed for a large message upon the first page fault, which can also help amortizing the cost of the page fault for larger messages. My reaction was that a pre-fault WR is needed to make this performant. But, I also don't fully understand why we need so many faults from the HCA in the first place. If you've properly solved the lifetime issues then the initial registration can meaningfully pre-initialize the page table in many cases, and computing the physical address of a page should not be so expensive. We have implemented a prefetching verb, but I think that in many cases, with smart enough prefetching logic in the page fault handler, it won't be needed. Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 04/06/2013 23:13, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Does this mean that an MPI implementation still has to register memory upon usage, and maintain its own registered memory cache? Yes. However, since registration doesn't pin memory, you can leave registered memory regions in the cache for longer periods, and you can register larger memory regions without needing to back them with physical memory. Hmm; I'm confused. How does this fix the MPI-needs-to-intercept-freed-memory problem? Well, there is no problem if an application frees registered memory (in an on-demand paging memory region) and that memory is returned to the OS. The OS will invalidate these pages, and the HCA will no longer be able to use them. This means that the registration cache doesn't have to de-register memory immediately when it is freed. Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Hmm; I'm confused. How does this fix the MPI-needs-to-intercept-freed-memory problem? Well, there is no problem if an application frees registered memory (in an on-demand paging memory region) and that memory is returned to the OS. The OS will invalidate these pages, and the HCA will no longer be able to use them. This means that the registration cache doesn't have to de-register memory immediately when it is freed. (must... resist... urge... to... throw... furniture...) This is why features should not be introduced to solve MPI problems without an understanding of what the MPI problems are. :-) Please go talk to the Mellanox MPI team. Forgive me for being frustrated; memory registration and all the pain that it entails was highlighted as ***the #1 problem*** by *5 major MPI implementations* at the Sonoma 2009 workshop (see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/301-mpi-update-and-requirements-panel-all-presentations.html, starting at slide 7 in the openmpi slide deck). Why don't we have something like ummunotify yet? Why don't we have non-blocking memory registration yet? ...etc. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 05/06/2013 15:45, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Hmm; I'm confused. How does this fix the MPI-needs-to-intercept-freed-memory problem? Well, there is no problem if an application frees registered memory (in an on-demand paging memory region) and that memory is returned to the OS. The OS will invalidate these pages, and the HCA will no longer be able to use them. This means that the registration cache doesn't have to de-register memory immediately when it is freed. (must... resist... urge... to... throw... furniture...) (ducking and taking cover :-) ) This is why features should not be introduced to solve MPI problems without an understanding of what the MPI problems are. :-) Please go talk to the Mellanox MPI team. Forgive me for being frustrated; memory registration and all the pain that it entails was highlighted as ***the #1 problem*** by *5 major MPI implementations* at the Sonoma 2009 workshop (see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/301-mpi-update-and-requirements-panel-all-presentations.html, starting at slide 7 in the openmpi slide deck). Perhaps I'm missing something, but I believe ODP deals with the first two problems in the list (slide 8), even if it doesn't solve them completely. You no longer need to do dangerous tricks to catch free, munmap, sbrk. As I explained above, these operations can work on an ODP MR without allowing the HCA use the invalidated mappings. In the future we want to implement an implicit memory region covering the entire process address space, thus eliminating the need for memory registration almost completely (you might still want memory registration, or memory windows, in order to control permissions of remote operations). We can also allow fork to work with our implementation. Copy-on-write will work with ODP regions by invalidating the HCA's page tables before modifying the pages to be read-only. A page fault from the HCA can then refill the pages, or even break COW in case of a write. Why don't we have something like ummunotify yet? I think that the problem we are trying to solve is better handled inside the kernel. If you are going to change the HCA's memory mappings, you'd have to go through the kernel anyway. Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I believe ODP deals with the first two problems in the list (slide 8), even if it doesn't solve them completely. Unfortunately, it does not. If we could register(0 ... 2^64) and never have to worry about registered memory, that might be cool (depending on how that actually works) -- more below. See this blog post that describes the freed registered memory issue: http://blogs.cisco.com/performance/registered-memory-rma-rdma-and-mpi-implementations/ and consider the following valid user code: a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x12345) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI registers 0x100 for len=x, and saves (0x100,x) in reg cache free(a); a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x98765) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI sees a=0x100 and things that it is already registered // ...kaboom In short, MPI has to intercept free/sbrk/whatever so that it can update its registration cache. In the future we want to implement an implicit memory region covering the entire process address space, thus eliminating the need for memory registration almost completely (you might still want memory registration, or memory windows, in order to control permissions of remote operations). This would be great, as long as it's fast, transparent, and has no subtle implementation effects (like causing additional RNR NAKs for pages that are still in memory, which, according to your descriptions, it sounds like it won't). We can also allow fork to work with our implementation. Copy-on-write will work with ODP regions by invalidating the HCA's page tables before modifying the pages to be read-only. A page fault from the HCA can then refill the pages, or even break COW in case of a write. That would be cool, too. fork() has been a continuing problem -- solving that problem would be wonderful. If this ODP stuff becomes a new verb, it would be good: - if these fork-fixing / register-infinite capabilities can be queried at run time (maybe on ibv_device_cap_flags?) so that ULPs can know to use this functionality - if driver owners can get a heads up so that they can know to implement it Why don't we have something like ummunotify yet? I think that the problem we are trying to solve is better handled inside the kernel. If you are going to change the HCA's memory mappings, you'd have to go through the kernel anyway. If/when you allow registering all memory, then I think you're right -- the MPI-must-intercept-free/sbrk-whatever issue may go away (that's why I started this thread asking about register(0 .. 2^64)). But without that, unless I'm missing something, I don't think it solves the MPI-must-catch-free-sbrk-etc. issues...? And therefore, having some kind of ummunotify-like functionality as a verb would be a Very Good Thing. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:53:48PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I believe ODP deals with the first two problems in the list (slide 8), even if it doesn't solve them completely. Unfortunately, it does not. If we could register(0 ... 2^64) and never have to worry about registered memory, that might be cool (depending on how that actually works) -- more below. See this blog post that describes the freed registered memory issue: http://blogs.cisco.com/performance/registered-memory-rma-rdma-and-mpi-implementations/ and consider the following valid user code: a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x12345) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI registers 0x100 for len=x, and saves (0x100,x) in reg cache free(a); a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x98765) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI sees a=0x100 and things that it is already registered // ...kaboom In short, MPI has to intercept free/sbrk/whatever so that it can update its registration cache. ODP is supposed to completely solve this problem. The HCA's view and Kernels view of virtual to physical mapping becomes 100% synchronized, and there is no 'kaboom'. The kernel updates the HCA after the free, and after the 2nd malloc to 100% match the current virtual memory map in the process. MPI still has to register the memory in the first place.. .. and somehow stuff has to be managed to avoid HCA page faults in common cases .. and the feature must be discoverable .. and and and .. The biggest issue to me is going to be efficiently prefetching receive buffers so that RNR acks are avoided in all common cases... solves the MPI-must-catch-free-sbrk-etc. issues...? And therefore, having some kind of ummunotify-like functionality as a verb would be a Very Good Thing. AFAIK the ummunotify user space API was nak'd by the core kernel guys. I got the impression people thought it would be acceptable as a rdma API, not a general API. So it is waiting on someone to recast the function within verbs to make progress... Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x12345) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI registers 0x100 for len=x, and saves (0x100,x) in reg cache free(a); a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x98765) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI sees a=0x100 and things that it is already registered // ...kaboom ODP is supposed to completely solve this problem. The HCA's view and Kernels view of virtual to physical mapping becomes 100% synchronized, and there is no 'kaboom'. The kernel updates the HCA after the free, and after the 2nd malloc to 100% match the current virtual memory map in the process. Are you saying that the 2nd malloc will magically be registered (with the new physical address)? AFAIK the ummunotify user space API was nak'd by the core kernel guys. It was NAK'ed by Linus, saying fix your own network stack; this is not needed in the general purpose part of the kernel (remember that Roland initially developed this as a standalone, non-IB-related kernel module). I got the impression people thought it would be acceptable as a rdma API, not a general API. So it is waiting on someone to recast the function within verbs to make progress... 'zactly. Roland has this ummunot branch in his git tree, where he is in the middle of incorporating this functionality from the original ummunotify standalone kernel module into libibverbs and ibcore. I started this thread asking the status of that branch. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:10:11PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x12345) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI registers 0x100 for len=x, and saves (0x100,x) in reg cache free(a); a = malloc(x);// a gets (va=0x100, pa=0x98765) back from malloc MPI_Send(a, ...); // MPI sees a=0x100 and things that it is already registered // ...kaboom ODP is supposed to completely solve this problem. The HCA's view and Kernels view of virtual to physical mapping becomes 100% synchronized, and there is no 'kaboom'. The kernel updates the HCA after the free, and after the 2nd malloc to 100% match the current virtual memory map in the process. Are you saying that the 2nd malloc will magically be registered (with the new physical address)? Yes, that is the whole point. ODP fundamentally fixes the *bug* where the HCA's view of process memory can become inconsistent with the kernel's view. 'magically be registered' is the wrong way to think about it - the registration of VA=0x100 is simply kept, and any change to the underlying physical mapping of the VA is synchronized with the HCA. 'zactly. Roland has this ummunot branch in his git tree, where he is in the middle of incorporating this functionality from the original ummunotify standalone kernel module into libibverbs and ibcore. Right, this was discussed at the Enterprise Summit a few weeks ago. I'm sure Roland would welcome patches... Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: Are you saying that the 2nd malloc will magically be registered (with the new physical address)? Yes, that is the whole point. Interesting. ODP fundamentally fixes the *bug* where the HCA's view of process memory can become inconsistent with the kernel's view. Hum. I was under the impression that with today's code (i.e., not ODP), if you a = malloc(N); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N, ...); free(a); (assuming that the memory actually left the process at free) Then the relevant kernel verbs driver was notified, and would unregister that device. ...but I'm an MPI guy, not a kernel guy -- it seems like you're saying that my impression was wrong (which doesn't currently matter because we intercept free/sbrk and unregister such memory, anyway). 'magically be registered' is the wrong way to think about it - the registration of VA=0x100 is simply kept, and any change to the underlying physical mapping of the VA is synchronized with the HCA. What happens if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a Or if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); a = malloc(N / 2 * page_size); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a that is of length (N*page_size) It does seem quite odd, abstractly speaking, that a registration would survive a free/re-malloc (which is arguably a different buffer). That being said, it still seems like MPI needs a registration cache. It is several good steps forward if we don't need to intercept free/sbrk/whatever, but when MPI_Send(buf, ...) is invoked, we still have to check that the entire buf is registered. If ibv_reg_mr(..., 0, 2^64, ...) was supported, that would obviate the entire need for registration caches. That would be wonderful. Right, this was discussed at the Enterprise Summit a few weeks ago. I'm sure Roland would welcome patches... That's why I asked at the beginning of this thread. He didn't provide any details about what still needs to be done, though. :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:45:13PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: Hum. I was under the impression that with today's code (i.e., not ODP), if you a = malloc(N); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N, ...); free(a); (assuming that the memory actually left the process at free) Then the relevant kernel verbs driver was notified, and would unregister that device. ...but I'm an MPI guy, not a kernel guy -- it seems like you're saying that my impression was wrong (which doesn't currently matter because we intercept free/sbrk and unregister such memory, anyway). Sadly no, what happens is that once you do ibv_reg_mr that 'HCA virtual address' is forever tied to the physical memory under the 'process virtual address' *at that moment* forever. So in the case above, RDMA can continue after the free, and it continues to hit the same *physical* memory that it always hit, but due to the free the process has lost access to that memory (the kernel keeps the physical memory reserved for RDMA purposes until unreg though). This is fundamentally why you need to intercept mmap/munmap/sbrk - if the process's VM mapping is changed through those syscalls then the HCA's VM and the process VM becomes de-synchronized. 'magically be registered' is the wrong way to think about it - the registration of VA=0x100 is simply kept, and any change to the underlying physical mapping of the VA is synchronized with the HCA. What happens if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a Haggai should comment on this, but my impression/expectation was you'll get a remote protection fault/ Or if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); a = malloc(N / 2 * page_size); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a that is of length (N*page_size) again, I expect a remote protection fault. Noting of course, both of these cases are only true if the underlying VM is manipulated in a way that makes the pages unmapped (eg mmap/munmap, not free) I would also assume that attempts to RDMA write read only pages protection fault as well. It does seem quite odd, abstractly speaking, that a registration would survive a free/re-malloc (which is arguably a different buffer). Not at all: the purpose of the registration is to allow access via RDMA to a portion of the process's address space. The address space doesn't change, but what it is mapped to can vary. So - the ODP semantics make much more sense, so much so I'm not sure we need a ODP flag at all, but that can be discussed when the patches are proposed... That being said, it still seems like MPI needs a registration cache. It is several good steps forward if we don't need to intercept free/sbrk/whatever, but when MPI_Send(buf, ...) is invoked, we still have to check that the entire buf is registered. If ibv_reg_mr(..., 0, 2^64, ...) was supported, that would obviate the entire need for registration caches. That would be wonderful. Yes, except that this shifts around where the registration overhead ends up. Basically the HCA driver now has the registration cache you had in MPI, and all the same overheads still exist. No free lunch here :( Haggai: A verb to resize a registration would probably be a helpful step. MPI could maintain one registration that covers the sbrk region and one registration that covers the heap, much easier than searching tables and things. Also bear in mind that all RDMA access protections will be disabled if you register the entire process VM, the remote(s) can scribble/read everything.. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote: It does seem quite odd, abstractly speaking, that a registration would survive a free/re-malloc (which is arguably a different buffer). Not at all: the purpose of the registration is to allow access via RDMA to a portion of the process's address space. The address space doesn't change, but what it is mapped to can vary. I still think it's really weird. When I do this: a = malloc(N); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N, ...); free(a); b = malloc(M); If b just happens to be partially or wholly registered by some quirk of the malloc() system (i.e., some/all of the virtual address space in b happens to have been covered by a prior malloc/ibv_reg_mr)... that's just weird. If ibv_reg_mr(..., 0, 2^64, ...) was supported, that would obviate the entire need for registration caches. That would be wonderful. Yes, except that this shifts around where the registration overhead ends up. Basically the HCA driver now has the registration cache you had in MPI, and all the same overheads still exist. There's fewer verbs drivers than applications, right? Haggai: A verb to resize a registration would probably be a helpful step. MPI could maintain one registration that covers the sbrk region and one registration that covers the heap, much easier than searching tables and things. If we still have to register buffers piecemeal, a non-blocking registration verb would be quite helpful. Also bear in mind that all RDMA access protections will be disabled if you register the entire process VM, the remote(s) can scribble/read everything.. No problem for MPI/HPC... :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 05/06/2013 22:05, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:45:13PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: What happens if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a Haggai should comment on this, but my impression/expectation was you'll get a remote protection fault/ Or if you: a = malloc(N * page_size); ibv_reg_mr(..., a, N * page_size, ...); free(a); a = malloc(N / 2 * page_size); // incoming RDMA arrives targeted at buffer a that is of length (N*page_size) again, I expect a remote protection fault. Noting of course, both of these cases are only true if the underlying VM is manipulated in a way that makes the pages unmapped (eg mmap/munmap, not free) That's right. If pages are unmapped and a remote operation tries to access them the QP will be closed with a protection error. I would also assume that attempts to RDMA write read only pages protection fault as well. Right. Haggai: A verb to resize a registration would probably be a helpful step. MPI could maintain one registration that covers the sbrk region and one registration that covers the heap, much easier than searching tables and things. That's a nice idea. Even without this verb, I think it is possible to develop a registration cache that covers those regions though. When you find out you have some part of your region not registered, you can register a new, larger region that covers everything you need. For new operations you only use the newer region. Once the previous, smaller region is not used, you de-register it. What do you think? Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 04/06/2013 04:24, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On May 29, 2013, at 1:53 AM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote: Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Is the idea behind ODP that, at the beginning of time, you register the entire memory space (i.e., NULL to 2^64) and then never worry about registered memory? Adding Haggai from the team that works on ODP. Haggai, Jeff also made a comment over this thread http://marc.info/?t=13697634766r=1w=2 that a limitation of a max of 2 concurrent page faults seems fairly significant which you might want to address too. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 04/06/2013 11:37, Or Gerlitz wrote: On 04/06/2013 04:24, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On May 29, 2013, at 1:53 AM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote: Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Is the idea behind ODP that, at the beginning of time, you register the entire memory space (i.e., NULL to 2^64) and then never worry about registered memory? We wish to get there eventually. In our current implementation you still have to register an on-demand memory region explicitly. The difference between a regular memory region is that the pages in the region aren't pinned. Adding Haggai from the team that works on ODP. Haggai, Jeff also made a comment over this thread http://marc.info/?t=13697634766r=1w=2 that a limitation of a max of 2 concurrent page faults seems fairly significant which you might want to address too. We chose to support only 2 concurrent page faults per QP since this allows us to maintain order between the QP's operations and the user-space code using it. Regards, Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:54 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: We wish to get there eventually. In our current implementation you still have to register an on-demand memory region explicitly. The difference between a regular memory region is that the pages in the region aren't pinned. Does this mean that an MPI implementation still has to register memory upon usage, and maintain its own registered memory cache? We chose to support only 2 concurrent page faults per QP since this allows us to maintain order between the QP's operations and the user-space code using it. I talked to someone who was at the OpenFabrics workshop and saw the ODP presentation in person; he tells me that a fault will be incurred when a page is not in the HCA's TLB cache (vs. when a registered page is not in memory and must be swapped back in), and that this will trigger an RNR NAK. Is this correct? He was very concerned about what the size of the TLB on the HCA, and therefore what the actual run-time behavior would be for sending around large messages via MPI -- i.e., would RDMA'ing 1GB messages now incur this HCA-must-reload-its-TLB-and-therefore-incur-RNR-NAKs behavior? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 04/06/2013 13:56, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:54 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: We wish to get there eventually. In our current implementation you still have to register an on-demand memory region explicitly. The difference between a regular memory region is that the pages in the region aren't pinned. Does this mean that an MPI implementation still has to register memory upon usage, and maintain its own registered memory cache? Yes. However, since registration doesn't pin memory, you can leave registered memory regions in the cache for longer periods, and you can register larger memory regions without needing to back them with physical memory. We chose to support only 2 concurrent page faults per QP since this allows us to maintain order between the QP's operations and the user-space code using it. I talked to someone who was at the OpenFabrics workshop and saw the ODP presentation in person; he tells me that a fault will be incurred when a page is not in the HCA's TLB cache (vs. when a registered page is not in memory and must be swapped back in), and that this will trigger an RNR NAK. Is this correct? Our HCAs use their own page tables, in addition to a TLB cache. A miss in the TLB cache that can be filled from the HCA's page tables will not cause an RNR NAK, since the HCA can fill it relatively fast without the help of the operating system. If the page is missing from the HCA's page table though it will trigger a page fault and ask the OS to bring that page. Since this might take longer, in these cases we send an RNR NAK. He was very concerned about what the size of the TLB on the HCA, and therefore what the actual run-time behavior would be for sending around large messages via MPI -- i.e., would RDMA'ing 1GB messages now incur this HCA-must-reload-its-TLB-and-therefore-incur-RNR-NAKs behavior? We have a mechanism to prefetch the pages needed for a large message upon the first page fault, which can also help amortizing the cost of the page fault for larger messages. Haggai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:50:33PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote: Our HCAs use their own page tables, in addition to a TLB cache. A miss in the TLB cache that can be filled from the HCA's page tables will not cause an RNR NAK, since the HCA can fill it relatively fast without the help of the operating system. If the page is missing from the HCA's page table though it will trigger a page fault and ask the OS to bring that page. Since this might take longer, in these cases we send an RNR NAK. I also saw the presentation at the OFA conference and had several questions.. So, my assumption: - There is a fast small TLB inside the HCA - There is a larger page table the HCA accesses inside the host memory AFAIK, this is basically the construction we have today, and the larger page table is expected to be fully populated. Thus, I assume, on-demand allows pages that are 'absent' in the larger page table to generate faults to the CPU? So how does lifetime work here? - Can you populate the larger page table as soon as registration happens, relying on mmu notifier and HCA faults to keep it consistent? - After a fault happens are the faulted pages pinned? How does lifetime work here? What happens when the kernel wants to evict a page that has currently ongoing RDMA? What happens if user space munmaps something while the remote is doing RDMA to it? - If I recall the presentation, the fault-in operation was very slow, what is the cause for this? He was very concerned about what the size of the TLB on the HCA, and therefore what the actual run-time behavior would be for sending around large messages via MPI -- i.e., would RDMA'ing 1GB messages now incur this HCA-must-reload-its-TLB-and-therefore-incur-RNR-NAKs behavior? We have a mechanism to prefetch the pages needed for a large message upon the first page fault, which can also help amortizing the cost of the page fault for larger messages. My reaction was that a pre-fault WR is needed to make this performant. But, I also don't fully understand why we need so many faults from the HCA in the first place. If you've properly solved the lifetime issues then the initial registration can meaningfully pre-initialize the page table in many cases, and computing the physical address of a page should not be so expensive. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Haggai Eran hagg...@mellanox.com wrote: Does this mean that an MPI implementation still has to register memory upon usage, and maintain its own registered memory cache? Yes. However, since registration doesn't pin memory, you can leave registered memory regions in the cache for longer periods, and you can register larger memory regions without needing to back them with physical memory. Hmm; I'm confused. How does this fix the MPI-needs-to-intercept-freed-memory problem? We chose to support only 2 concurrent page faults per QP since this allows us to maintain order between the QP's operations and the user-space code using it. I talked to someone who was at the OpenFabrics workshop and saw the ODP presentation in person; he tells me that a fault will be incurred when a page is not in the HCA's TLB cache (vs. when a registered page is not in memory and must be swapped back in), and that this will trigger an RNR NAK. Is this correct? Our HCAs use their own page tables, in addition to a TLB cache. A miss in the TLB cache that can be filled from the HCA's page tables will not cause an RNR NAK, since the HCA can fill it relatively fast without the help of the operating system. If the page is missing from the HCA's page table though it will trigger a page fault and ask the OS to bring that page. Since this might take longer, in these cases we send an RNR NAK. Ok. But the primary use case I care about is fixing the MPI-needs-to-intercept-freed-memory problem, and it doesn't sounds like ODP fixes this. He was very concerned about what the size of the TLB on the HCA, and therefore what the actual run-time behavior would be for sending around large messages via MPI -- i.e., would RDMA'ing 1GB messages now incur this HCA-must-reload-its-TLB-and-therefore-incur-RNR-NAKs behavior? We have a mechanism to prefetch the pages needed for a large message upon the first page fault, which can also help amortizing the cost of the page fault for larger messages. Ok, thanks. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On May 29, 2013, at 1:53 AM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote: Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Is the idea behind ODP that, at the beginning of time, you register the entire memory space (i.e., NULL to 2^64) and then never worry about registered memory? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On May 30, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Or Gerlitz ogerl...@mellanox.com wrote: Has this been run by the MPI implementor community? The team that works on this here isn't ready for submission, so community runs were not made yet If this is a solution to an MPI problem, it would seem like a good idea to run the specifics of this proposal to the MPI *implementor* community first (not *users*). I say this because Mellanox also proposed the concept of a shared send queue as a solution to MPI RC scalability problems a while ago (around about the time XRC first debuted, IIRC?), and the MPI community universally hated it. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquy...@cisco.com wrote: I ask because, as an MPI guy, I would *love* to see this stuff integrated into the kernel and libibverbs. Hi Jeff, Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On May 29, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote: Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Is this upstream? Has this been run by the MPI implementor community? The limitation of a max of 2 concurrent page faults seems fairly significant. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On 30/05/2013 01:56, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: On May 29, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote: Have you looked on ODP? see https://www.openfabrics.org/resources/document-downloads/presentations/doc_download/568-on-demand-paging-for-user-space-networking.html Is this upstream? No Has this been run by the MPI implementor community? The team that works on this here isn't ready for submission, so community runs were not made yet The limitation of a max of 2 concurrent page faults seems fairly significant. let me check -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquy...@cisco.com wrote: I see a ummunot branch on your kernel tree at git.kernel.org (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git/log/?h=ummunot). Just curious -- what's the status of this tree? I ask because, as an MPI guy, I would *love* to see this stuff integrated into the kernel and libibverbs. Haven't touched it in quite a while except to keep it building. Needs work to finish up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Status of ummunot branch?
On May 28, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com wrote: Haven't touched it in quite a while except to keep it building. Needs work to finish up. What kinds of things still need to be done? (I don't know if we could work on this or not; just asking to scope out what would need to be done at this point) Has anything been done on the userspace side? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
