From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@raithlin.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com>
On 3/31/2017 6:42 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 31/03/17 03:38 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 3/31/2017 5:23 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> What exactly would you white/black list? It can't be the NIC or the
>>> disk. If it's going to be a white/black list on the switch or root port
>>> then you'd need essentially the same code to ensure they are all behind
>>> the same switch or root port.
>>
>> What is so special about being connected to the same switch?
>>
>> Why don't we allow the feature by default and blacklist by the root ports
>> that don't work with a quirk.
>
> Well root ports have the same issue here. There may be more than one
> root port or other buses (ie QPI) between the devices in question. So
> you can't just say "this system has root port X therefore we can always
> use p2pmem".
We only care about devices on the data path between two devices.
> In the end, if you want to do any kind of restrictions
> you're going to have to walk the tree, as the code currently does, and
> figure out what's between the devices being used and black or white list
> accordingly. Then seeing there's just such a vast number of devices out
> there you'd almost certainly have to use some kind of white list and not
> a black list. Then the question becomes which devices will be white
> listed?
How about a combination of blacklist + time bomb + peer-to-peer feature?
You can put a restriction with DMI/SMBIOS such that all devices from 2016
work else they belong to blacklist.
> The first to be listed would be switches seeing they will always
> work. This is pretty much what we have (though it doesn't currently
> cover multiple levels of switches). The next step, if someone wanted to
> test with specific hardware, might be to allow the case where all the
> devices are behind the same root port which Intel Ivy Bridge or newer.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with Intel architecture. Based on what you just
wrote, I think I see your point.
I'm trying to generalize what you are doing to a little
bigger context so that I can use it on another architecture like arm64
where I may or may not have a switch.
This text below is sort of repeating what you are writing above.
How about this:
The goal is to find a common parent between any two devices that need to
use your code.
- all bridges/switches on the data need to support peer-to-peer, otherwise
stop.
- Make sure that all devices on the data path are not blacklisted via your
code.
- If there is at least somebody blacklisted, we stop and the feature is
not allowed.
- If we find a common parent and no errors, you are good to go.
- We don't care about devices above the common parent whether they have
some feature X, Y, Z or not.
Maybe, a little bit less code than what you have but it is flexible and
not that too hard to implement.
Well, the code is in RFC. I don't see why we can't remove some restrictions
and still have your code move forward.
> However, I don't think a comprehensive white list should be a
> requirement for this work to go forward and I don't think anything
> you've suggested will remove any of the "ugliness".
I don't think the ask above is a very big deal. If you feel like
addressing this on another patchset like you suggested in your cover letter,
I'm fine with that too.
>
> What we discussed at LSF was that only allowing cases with a switch was
> the simplest way to be sure any given setup would actually work.
>
>> I'm looking at this from portability perspective to be honest.
>
> I'm looking at this from the fact that there's a vast number of
> topologies and devices involved, and figuring out which will work is
> very complicated and could require a lot of hardware testing. The LSF
> folks were primarily concerned with not having users enable the feature
> and see breakage or terrible performance.
>
>> I'd rather see the feature enabled by default without any assumptions.
>> Using it with a switch is just a use case that you happened to test.
>> It can allow new architectures to use your code tomorrow.
>
> That's why I was advocating for letting userspace decide such that if
> you're setting up a system with this you say to use a specific p2pmem
> device and then you are responsible to test and benchmark it and decide
> to use it in going forward. However, this has received a lot of push back.
Yeah, we shouldn't trust the userspace for such things.
>
> Logan
>
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-31 23:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-30 22:12 [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-31 18:49 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-03-31 21:23 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-31 21:38 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-03-31 22:42 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-31 23:51 ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2017-04-01 1:57 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-01 2:17 ` okaya
2017-04-01 22:16 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-02 2:26 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-04-02 17:21 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-02 21:03 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-04-03 4:26 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-25 11:58 ` Marta Rybczynska
2017-04-25 16:58 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 2/8] cxgb4: setup pcie memory window 4 and create p2pmem region Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 10:42 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-04 15:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-05 15:41 ` Steve Wise
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 3/8] nvmet: Use p2pmem in nvme target Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 10:40 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-04 16:16 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-06 5:47 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-06 15:52 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 4/8] p2pmem: Add debugfs "stats" file Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 10:46 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-04 17:25 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-05 15:43 ` Steve Wise
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 5/8] scatterlist: Modify SG copy functions to support io memory Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-31 7:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-31 15:41 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-03 21:20 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-03 21:44 ` Dan Williams
2017-04-03 22:10 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-03 22:47 ` Dan Williams
2017-04-03 23:12 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 0:07 ` Dan Williams
2017-04-07 17:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 6/8] nvmet: Be careful about using iomem accesses when dealing with p2pmem Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 10:59 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-04 15:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-04-04 17:21 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-06 5:33 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-06 16:02 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-06 16:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-04-07 11:19 ` Stephen Bates
2017-04-10 8:29 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-04-10 16:03 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 7/8] p2pmem: Support device removal Logan Gunthorpe
2017-03-30 22:12 ` [RFC 8/8] p2pmem: Added char device user interface Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-12 5:22 ` [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-12 17:09 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-12 21:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-13 21:22 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-13 22:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-13 23:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-04-14 4:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-04-14 4:40 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-14 11:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-14 11:39 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-14 11:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-14 17:30 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-14 19:04 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-04-14 22:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-15 17:41 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-15 22:09 ` Dan Williams
2017-04-16 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-16 4:46 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-16 15:53 ` Dan Williams
2017-04-16 16:34 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-16 22:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-24 7:36 ` Knut Omang
2017-04-24 16:14 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-25 6:30 ` Knut Omang
2017-04-25 17:03 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2017-04-25 21:23 ` Stephen Bates
2017-04-25 21:23 ` Stephen Bates
2017-04-16 22:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-15 22:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-04-16 5:36 ` Logan Gunthorpe
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=0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org \
--to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=maxg@mellanox.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=sbates@raithlin.com \
--cc=swise@opengridcomputing.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).