[RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
Logan Gunthorpe
logang at deltatee.com
Wed Apr 19 12:02:49 PDT 2017
On 19/04/17 12:32 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:01:39PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Not entirely, it would have to call through the whole process
> including the arch_p2p_cross_segment()..
Hmm, yes. Though it's still not clear what, if anything,
arch_p2p_cross_segment would be doing. In my experience, if you are
going between host bridges, the CPU address (or PCI address -- I'm not
sure which seeing they are the same on my system) would still work fine
-- it just _may_ be a bad idea because of performance.
Similarly if you are crossing via a QPI bus or similar, I'd expect the
CPU address to work fine. But here the performance is even less likely
to be any good.
> // Try the arch specific helper
> const struct dma_map_ops *comp_ops = get_dma_ops(completer);
> const struct dma_map_ops *init_ops = get_dma_ops(initiator);
So, in this case, what device does the completer point to? The PCI
device or a more specific GPU device? If it's the former, who's
responsible for setting the new dma_ops? Typically the dma_ops are arch
specific but now you'd be adding ones that are tied to hmm or the gpu.
>> I'm not sure I like the name pci_p2p_same_segment. It reads as though
>> it's only checking if the devices are not the same segment.
>
> Well, that is exactly what it is doing. If it succeeds then the caller
> knows the DMA will not flow outside the segment and no iommu setup/etc
> is required.
It appears to me like it's calculating the DMA address, and the check is
just a side requirement. It reads as though it's only doing the check.
Logan
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list