On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 23:13 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > I'm still not 100% why do you need a "p2mem device" mind you ... > > Well, you don't "need" it but it is a design choice that I think makes a > lot of sense for the following reasons: > > 1) p2pmem is in fact a device on the pci bus. A pci driver will need to > set it up and create the device and thus it will have a natural parent > pci device. Instantiating a struct device for it means it will appear in > the device hierarchy and one can use that to reason about its position > in the topology.
But is it ? For example take a GPU, does it, in your scheme, need an additional "p2pmem" child ? Why can't the GPU driver just use some helper to instantiate the necessary struct pages ? What does having an actual "struct device" child buys you ? > 2) In order to create the struct pages we use the ZONE_DEVICE > infrastructure which requires a struct device. (See > devm_memremap_pages.) Yup, but you already have one in the actual pci_dev ... What is the benefit of adding a second one ? > This amazingly gets us the get_dev_pagemap > architecture which also uses a struct device. So by using a p2pmem > device we can go from struct page to struct device to p2pmem device > quickly and effortlessly. Which isn't terribly useful in itself right ? What you care about is the "enclosing" pci_dev no ? Or am I missing something ? > 3) You wouldn't want to use the pci's struct device because it doesn't > really describe what's going on. For example, there may be multiple > devices on the pci device in question: eg. an NVME card and some p2pmem. What is "some p2pmem" ? > Or it could be a NIC with some p2pmem. Again what is "some p2pmem" ? That a device might have some memory-like buffer space is all well and good but does it need to be specifically distinguished at the device level ? It could be inherent to what the device is... for example again take the GPU example, why would you call the FB memory "p2pmem" ? > Or it could just be p2pmem by itself. And the logic to figure out what > memory is available and where > the address is will be non-standard so it's really straightforward to > have any pci driver just instantiate a p2pmem device. Again I'm not sure why it needs to "instanciate a p2pmem" device. Maybe it's the term "p2pmem" that offputs me. If p2pmem allowed to have a standard way to lookup the various offsets etc... I mentioned earlier, then yes, it would make sense to have it as a staging point. As-is, I don't know. > It is probably worth you reading the RFC patches at this point to get a > better feel for this. Yup, I'll have another look a bit more in depth. Cheers, Ben. > Logan
