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.
Some close driver provide a functionality on top of this design. Question
is do we want to do the same ? If yes and you insist on having a vma we
could provide one but this is does not apply and is useless for where we
are going with new hardware.
With new hardware you just use malloc or mmap to allocate memory and then
you use it directly with the device. Device driver can migrate any part of
the process address space to device memory. In this scheme you have your
usual VMAs but there is nothing special about them.
Assuming that the whole device memory is CPU accessible and it looks
like the direction where we are going:
- You forgot about use case when we want or need to allocate memory
directly on device (why we need to migrate anything if not needed?).
- We may want to use CPU to access such memory on device to avoid
any unnecessary migration back.
- We may have more device memory than the system one.
E.g. if you have 12 GPUs w/64GB each it will already give us ~0.7 TB
not mentioning NVDIMM cards which could also be used as memory
storage for other device access.
- We also may want/need to share GPU memory between different
processes.
Now when you try to do get_user_page() on any page that is inside the
device it will fails because we do not allow any device memory to be pin.
There is various reasons for that and they are not going away in any hw
in the planing (so for next few years).
Still we do want to support peer to peer mapping. Plan is to only do so
with ODP capable hardware. Still we need to solve the IOMMU issue and
it needs special handling inside the RDMA device. The way it works is
that RDMA ask for a GPU page, GPU check if it has place inside its PCI
bar to map this page for the device, this can fail. If it succeed then
you need the IOMMU to let the RDMA device access the GPU PCI bar.
So here we have 2 orthogonal problem. First one is how to make 2 drivers
talks to each other to setup mapping to allow peer to peer But I would assume
and second is
about IOMMU.
I think that there is the third problem: A lot of existing user level API
(MPI, IB Verbs, file i/o, etc.) deal with pointers to the buffers.
Potentially it would be ideally to support use cases when those buffers are
located in device memory avoiding any unnecessary migration /
double-buffering.
Currently a lot of infrastructure in kernel assumes that this is the user
pointer and call "get_user_pages" to get s/g. What is your opinion
how it should be changed to deal with cases when "buffer" is in
device memory?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
