[RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory

[Logan Gunthorpe]

On 18/04/17 04:50 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Logan Gunthorpe <logang at deltatee.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/04/17 04:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> Unlike the pci bus address offset case which I think is fundamental to
>>> support since shipping archs do this today, I think it is ok to say
>>> p2p is restricted to a single sgl that gets to talk to host memory or
>>> a single device. That said, what's wrong with a p2p aware map_sg
>>> implementation calling up to the host memory map_sg implementation on
>>> a per sgl basis?
>>
>> I think Ben said they need mixed sgls and that is where this gets messy.
>> I think I'd prefer this too given trying to enforce all sgs in a list to
>> be one type or another could be quite difficult given the state of the
>> scatterlist code.
>>
>>>> Also, what happens if p2p pages end up getting passed to a device that
>>>> doesn't have the injected dma_ops?
>>>
>>> This goes back to limiting p2p to a single pci host bridge. If the p2p
>>> capability is coordinated with the bridge rather than between the
>>> individual devices then we have a central point to catch this case.
>>
>> Not really relevant. If these pages get to userspace (as people seem
>> keen on doing) or a less than careful kernel driver they could easily
>> get into the dma_map calls of devices that aren't even pci related (via
>> an O_DIRECT operation on an incorrect file or something). The common
>> code must reject these and can't rely on an injected dma op.
> 
> No, we can't do that at get_user_pages() time, it will always need to
> be up to the device driver to fail dma that it can't perform.

I'm not sure I follow -- are you agreeing with me? The dma_map_* needs
to fail for any dma it cannot perform. Which means either all dma_ops
providers need to be p2p aware or this logic has to be in dma_map_*
itself. My point being: you can't rely on an injected dma_op for some
devices to handle the fail case globally.