Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory

[Logan Gunthorpe]

On 18/04/17 04:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Unlike the pci bus address offset case which I think is fundamental to
> support since shipping archs do this today, I think it is ok to say
> p2p is restricted to a single sgl that gets to talk to host memory or
> a single device. That said, what's wrong with a p2p aware map_sg
> implementation calling up to the host memory map_sg implementation on
> a per sgl basis?

I think Ben said they need mixed sgls and that is where this gets messy.
I think I'd prefer this too given trying to enforce all sgs in a list to
be one type or another could be quite difficult given the state of the
scatterlist code.

>> Also, what happens if p2p pages end up getting passed to a device that
>> doesn't have the injected dma_ops?
> 
> This goes back to limiting p2p to a single pci host bridge. If the p2p
> capability is coordinated with the bridge rather than between the
> individual devices then we have a central point to catch this case.

Not really relevant. If these pages get to userspace (as people seem
keen on doing) or a less than careful kernel driver they could easily
get into the dma_map calls of devices that aren't even pci related (via
an O_DIRECT operation on an incorrect file or something). The common
code must reject these and can't rely on an injected dma op.

Logan