On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:42:27AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:37 AM Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com wrote:
Am 22.06.21 um 01:29 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:24:16PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
Another thing I want to emphasize is that we are doing p2p only through the export/import of the FD. We do *not* allow the user to mmap the dma-buf as we do not support direct IO. So there is no access to these pages through the userspace.
Arguably mmaping the memory is a better choice, and is the direction that Logan's series goes in. Here the use of DMABUF was specifically designed to allow hitless revokation of the memory, which this isn't even using.
The major problem with this approach is that DMA-buf is also used for memory which isn't CPU accessible.
That isn't an issue here because the memory is only intended to be used with P2P transfers so it must be CPU accessible.
That was one of the reasons we didn't even considered using the mapping memory approach for GPUs.
Well, now we have DEVICE_PRIVATE memory that can meet this need too.. Just nobody has wired it up to hmm_range_fault()
So you are taking the hit of very limited hardware support and reduced performance just to squeeze into DMABUF..
Thanks Jason for the clarification, but I honestly prefer to use DMA-BUF at the moment. It gives us just what we need (even more than what we need as you pointed out), it is *already* integrated and tested in the RDMA subsystem, and I'm feeling comfortable using it as I'm somewhat familiar with it from my AMD days.
You still have the issue that this patch is doing all of this P2P stuff wrong - following the already NAK'd AMD approach.
I'll go and read Logan's patch-set to see if that will work for us in the future. Please remember, as Daniel said, we don't have struct page backing our device memory, so if that is a requirement to connect to Logan's work, then I don't think we will want to do it at this point.
It is trivial to get the struct page for a PCI BAR.
Jason