From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (smtp.codeaurora.org [198.145.29.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9AD921A04801 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <1490911959-5146-2-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <7158f2e8-2016-f398-e77f-0fcbe6cb41dd@deltatee.com> <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Logan Gunthorpe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , Steve Wise , Stephen Bates , Max Gurtovoy , Dan Williams , Keith Busch , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org List-ID: 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sinan Kaya Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <1490911959-5146-2-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <7158f2e8-2016-f398-e77f-0fcbe6cb41dd@deltatee.com> <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57-OTvnGxWRz7hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Logan Gunthorpe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , Steve Wise , Stephen Bates , Max Gurtovoy , Dan Williams , Keith Busch , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933531AbdCaXvn (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:53550 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932868AbdCaXv0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:26 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org D741860DA7 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=okaya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device To: Logan Gunthorpe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , Steve Wise , Stephen Bates , Max Gurtovoy , Dan Williams , Keith Busch , Jason Gunthorpe References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <1490911959-5146-2-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <7158f2e8-2016-f398-e77f-0fcbe6cb41dd@deltatee.com> <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.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 From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device To: Logan Gunthorpe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , Steve Wise , Stephen Bates , Max Gurtovoy , Dan Williams , Keith Busch , Jason Gunthorpe References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <1490911959-5146-2-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <7158f2e8-2016-f398-e77f-0fcbe6cb41dd@deltatee.com> <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: okaya@codeaurora.org (Sinan Kaya) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:51:20 -0400 Subject: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device In-Reply-To: <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <1490911959-5146-2-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com> <7158f2e8-2016-f398-e77f-0fcbe6cb41dd@deltatee.com> <0280fbb4-ba9e-ac64-6bb3-b72590a54e57@deltatee.com> Message-ID: <0ae27bca-21be-b89c-aba4-6cc9766ebd7b@codeaurora.org> 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.