MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <df1351d8-b86c-2e21-1948-4688ece5dc2b@deltatee.com>
References: <CAPcyv4it56J8Voo6kV0bBcO3nHsOHYLENpAtONJZTGceDDwNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1492381396.25766.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20170418164557.GA7181@obsidianresearch.com>
 <cce00131-1f28-27b3-40ab-04f8783f1e5a@deltatee.com> <20170418190138.GH7181@obsidianresearch.com>
 <df1351d8-b86c-2e21-1948-4688ece5dc2b@deltatee.com>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:48:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gScx6A7vG9VEHpNF41GOy1Nxst7QQ3QC3uZ54bWoxbMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, 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>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 945
Lines: 19

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 18/04/17 01:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Ultimately every dma_ops will need special code to support P2P with
>> the special hardware that ops is controlling, so it makes some sense
>> to start by pushing the check down there in the first place. This
>> advice is partially motivated by how dma_map_sg is just a small
>> wrapper around the function pointer call...
>
> Yes, I noticed this problem too and that makes sense. It just means
> every dma_ops will probably need to be modified to either support p2p
> pages or fail on them. Though, the only real difficulty there is that it
> will be a lot of work.

I don't think you need to go touch all dma_ops, I think you can just
arrange for devices that are going to do dma to get redirected to a
p2p aware provider of operations that overrides the system default
dma_ops. I.e. just touch get_dma_ops().