Re: [PATCH v16 0/4] RDMA: Add dma-buf support

From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
	Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	Jianxin Xiong <jianxin.xiong@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 0/4] RDMA: Add dma-buf support
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:24:38 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c339fc3-087b-1008-fb99-7117bf326470@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YB1p4Bpmz0yFcbEf@phenom.ffwll.local>

On 2/5/21 7:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 11:43:19AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 04:39:47PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>>>> And again, for slightly older hardware, without pinning to VRAM there is
>>>> no way to use this solution here for peer-to-peer. So I'm glad to see that
>>>> so far you're not ruling out the pinning option.
>>>
>>> Since HMM and ZONE_DEVICE came up, I'm kinda tempted to make ZONE_DEVICE
>>> ZONE_MOVEABLE (at least if you don't have a pinned vram contigent in your
>>> cgroups) or something like that, so we could benefit from the work to make
>>> sure pin_user_pages and all these never end up in there?
>>
>> ZONE_DEVICE should already not be returned from GUP.
>>
>> I've understood in the hmm casse the idea was a CPU touch of some
>> ZONE_DEVICE pages would trigger a migration to CPU memory, GUP would
>> want to follow the same logic, presumably it comes for free with the
>> fault handler somehow
> 
> Oh I didn't know this, I thought the proposed p2p direct i/o patches would
> just use the fact that underneath ZONE_DEVICE there's "normal" struct
> pages. And so I got worried that maybe also pin_user_pages can creep in.
> But I didn't read the patches in full detail:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20201106170036.18713-12-logang@deltatee.com/
> 
> But if you're saying that this all needs specific code and all the gup/pup
> code we have is excluded, I think we can make sure that we're not ever
> building features that requiring time-unlimited pinning of ZONE_DEVICE.
> Which I think we want.
> 

 From an HMM perspective, the above sounds about right. HMM relies on the
GPU/device memory being ZONE_DEVICE, *and* on that memory *not* being pinned.
(HMM's mmu notifier callbacks act as a sort of virtual pin, but not a refcount
pin.)

It's a nice clean design point that we need to preserve, and fortunately it
doesn't conflict with anything I'm seeing here. But I want to say this out
loud because I see some doubt about it creeping into the discussion.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel