To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.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>
 <CAPcyv4gScx6A7vG9VEHpNF41GOy1Nxst7QQ3QC3uZ54bWoxbMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170418210339.GA24257@obsidianresearch.com>
 <9fc9352f-86fe-3a9e-e372-24b3346b518c@deltatee.com>
 <20170418222440.GA27113@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.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>
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <d2d576e6-6bd6-22d7-6697-452104a503cd@deltatee.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:03:59 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170418222440.GA27113@obsidianresearch.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 745
Lines: 19


On 18/04/17 04:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Try and write a stacked map_sg function like you describe and you will
> see how horrible it quickly becomes.

Yes, unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement completely.

> Since dma mapping is a performance path we must be careful not to
> create intrinsic inefficiencies with otherwise nice layering :)

Yeah, I'm also personally thinking your proposal is the way to go as
well. Dan's injected ops suggestion is interesting but I can't see how
it solves the issue completely. Your proposal is the only one that seems
to be complete to me. It just has a few minor pain points which I've
already described but are likely manageable and less than the pain
stacked dma_ops creates.

Logan