From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@raithlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:20:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190625072008.GB30350@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <558a27ba-e7c9-9d94-cad0-377b8ee374a6@deltatee.com>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:07:56AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > For one passing a dma_addr_t through the block layer is a layering
> > violation, and one that I think will also bite us in practice.
> > The host physical to PCIe bus address mapping can have offsets, and
> > those offsets absolutely can be different for differnet root ports.
> > So with your caller generated dma_addr_t everything works fine with
> > a switched setup as the one you are probably testing on, but on a
> > sufficiently complicated setup with multiple root ports it can break.
>
> I don't follow this argument. Yes, I understand PCI Bus offsets and yes
> I understand that they only apply beyond the bus they're working with.
> But this isn't *that* complicated and it should be the responsibility of
> the P2PDMA code to sort out and provide a dma_addr_t for. The dma_addr_t
> that's passed through the block layer could be a bus address or it could
> be the result of a dma_map_* request (if the transaction is found to go
> through an RC) depending on the requirements of the devices being used.
You assume all addressing is done by the PCI bus address. If a device
is addressing its own BAR there is no reason to use the PCI bus address,
as it might have much more intelligent schemes (usually bar + offset).
>
> > Also duplicating the whole block I/O stack, including hooks all over
> > the fast path is pretty much a no-go.
>
> There was very little duplicate code in the patch set. (Really just the
> mapping code). There are a few hooks, but in practice not that many if
> we ignore the WARN_ONs. We might be able to work to reduce this further.
> The main hooks are: when we skip bouncing, when we skip integrity prep,
> when we split, and when we map. And the patchset drops the PCI_P2PDMA
> hook when we map. So we're talking about maybe three or four extra ifs
> that would likely normally be fast due to the branch predictor.
And all of those add code to the block layer fast path.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-25 7:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-20 16:12 [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 01/28] block: Introduce DMA direct request type Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 02/28] block: Add dma_vec structure Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 03/28] block: Warn on mis-use of dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 04/28] block: Never bounce " Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 17:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:38 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 05/28] block: Skip dma-direct bios in bio_integrity_prep() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 06/28] block: Support dma-direct bios in bio_advance_iter() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 07/28] block: Use dma_vec length in bio_cur_bytes() for dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 08/28] block: Introduce dmavec_phys_mergeable() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 09/28] block: Introduce vec_gap_to_prev() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 10/28] block: Create generic vec_split_segs() from bvec_split_segs() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 11/28] block: Create blk_segment_split_ctx Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 12/28] block: Create helper for bvec_should_split() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 13/28] block: Generalize bvec_should_split() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 14/28] block: Support splitting dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 15/28] block: Support counting dma-direct bio segments Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 16/28] block: Implement mapping dma-direct requests to SGs in blk_rq_map_sg() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 17/28] block: Introduce queue flag to indicate support for dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 18/28] block: Introduce bio_add_dma_addr() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 19/28] nvme-pci: Support dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 20/28] IB/core: Introduce API for initializing a RW ctx from a DMA address Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 17:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:24 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 21/28] nvmet: Split nvmet_bdev_execute_rw() into a helper function Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 22/28] nvmet: Use DMA addresses instead of struct pages for P2P Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 23/28] nvme-pci: Remove support for PCI_P2PDMA requests Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 24/28] block: Remove PCI_P2PDMA queue flag Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 25/28] IB/core: Remove P2PDMA mapping support in rdma_rw_ctx Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 26/28] PCI/P2PDMA: Remove SGL helpers Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 27/28] PCI/P2PDMA: Remove struct pages that back P2PDMA memory Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 28/28] memremap: Remove PCI P2PDMA page memory type Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:45 ` [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA Dan Williams
2019-06-20 19:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 20:18 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-20 20:51 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-21 17:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-21 17:54 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-24 7:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 13:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 13:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 13:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 16:53 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:28 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:54 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 19:37 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 16:10 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25 7:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-20 19:34 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 23:40 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-20 23:42 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 7:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 16:07 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-06-25 15:57 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-25 19:54 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 6:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-26 18:31 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:21 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:39 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-26 20:54 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:45 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 21:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 21:18 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 6:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:09 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:49 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 4:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 16:22 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 17:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 18:29 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 19:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 19:35 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-07-02 22:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-02 22:52 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 9:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-27 16:30 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 17:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-27 18:00 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 13:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-28 15:54 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 9:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190625072008.GB30350@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=sbates@raithlin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).