Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] mm/vma: add support for peer to peer to device vma

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:48:33PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019-01-30 12:19 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:13:11AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019-01-30 10:44 a.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> I don't see why a special case with a VMA is really that different.
> >>
> >> Well one *really* big difference is the VMA changes necessarily expose
> >> specialized new functionality to userspace which has to be supported
> >> forever and may be difficult to change. 
> > 
> > The only user change here is that more things will succeed when
> > creating RDMA MRs (and vice versa to GPU). I don't think this
> > restricts the kernel implementation at all, unless we intend to
> > remove P2P entirely..
> 
> Well for MRs I'd expect you are using struct pages to track the memory
> some how.... 

Not really, for MRs most drivers care about DMA addresses only. The
only reason struct page ever gets involved is because it is part of
the GUP, SGL and dma_map family of APIs.

> VMAs that aren't backed by pages and use this special interface must
> therefore be creating new special interfaces that can call
> p2p_[un]map...

Well, those are kernel internal interfaces, so they can be changed

No matter what we do, code that wants to DMA to user BAR pages must
take *some kind* of special care - either it needs to use a special
GUP and SGL flow, or a mixed GUP, SGL and p2p_map flow. 

I don't really see why one is better than the other at this point, or
why doing one means we can't do the other some day later. They are
fairly similar.

O_DIRECT seems to be the justification for struct page, but nobody is
signing up to make O_DIRECT have the required special GUP/SGL/P2P flow
that would be needed to *actually* make that work - so it really isn't
a justification today.

Jason