Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKMK7uFOfoxbD2Z5mb-qHFnUe5rObGKQ6Ygh--HSH9M=9bziGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YNCN0ulL6DQiRJaB@kroah.com> <20210621141217.GE1096940@ziepe.ca>
 <CAFCwf10KvCh0zfHEHqYR-Na6KJh4j+9i-6+==QaMdHHpLH1yEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210621175511.GI1096940@ziepe.ca> <CAKMK7uEO1_B59DtM7N2g7kkH7pYtLM_WAkn+0f3FU3ps=XEjZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFCwf11jOnewkbLuxUESswCJpyo7C0ovZj80UrnwUOZkPv2JYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210621232912.GK1096940@ziepe.ca> <d358c740-fd3a-9ecd-7001-676e2cb44ec9@gmail.com>
 <CAFCwf11h_Nj_GEdCdeTzO5jgr-Y9em+W-v_pYUfz64i5Ac25yg@mail.gmail.com> <20210622120142.GL1096940@ziepe.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20210622120142.GL1096940@ziepe.ca>
From:   Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:04:30 +0300
Message-ID: <CAFCwf10GmBjeJAFp0uJsMLiv-8HWAR==RqV9ZdMQz+iW9XWdTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 1/2] habanalabs: define uAPI to export
 FD for DMA-BUF
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>,
        Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com>, sleybo@amazon.com,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Tomer Tayar <ttayar@habana.ai>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:01 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:42:27AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:37 AM Christian K=C3=B6nig
> > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 22.06.21 um 01:29 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:24:16PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Another thing I want to emphasize is that we are doing p2p only
> > > >> through the export/import of the FD. We do *not* allow the user to
> > > >> mmap the dma-buf as we do not support direct IO. So there is no ac=
cess
> > > >> to these pages through the userspace.
> > > > Arguably mmaping the memory is a better choice, and is the directio=
n
> > > > that Logan's series goes in. Here the use of DMABUF was specificall=
y
> > > > designed to allow hitless revokation of the memory, which this isn'=
t
> > > > even using.
> > >
> > > The major problem with this approach is that DMA-buf is also used for
> > > memory which isn't CPU accessible.
>
> That isn't an issue here because the memory is only intended to be
> used with P2P transfers so it must be CPU accessible.
>
> > > That was one of the reasons we didn't even considered using the mappi=
ng
> > > memory approach for GPUs.
>
> Well, now we have DEVICE_PRIVATE memory that can meet this need
> too.. Just nobody has wired it up to hmm_range_fault()
>
> > > > So you are taking the hit of very limited hardware support and redu=
ced
> > > > performance just to squeeze into DMABUF..
> >
> > Thanks Jason for the clarification, but I honestly prefer to use
> > DMA-BUF at the moment.
> > It gives us just what we need (even more than what we need as you
> > pointed out), it is *already* integrated and tested in the RDMA
> > subsystem, and I'm feeling comfortable using it as I'm somewhat
> > familiar with it from my AMD days.
>
> You still have the issue that this patch is doing all of this P2P
> stuff wrong - following the already NAK'd AMD approach.

Could you please point me exactly to the lines of code that are wrong
in your opinion ?
I find it hard to understand from your statement what exactly you
think that we are doing wrong.
The implementation is found in the second patch in this patch-set.

Thanks,
Oded
>
> > I'll go and read Logan's patch-set to see if that will work for us in
> > the future. Please remember, as Daniel said, we don't have struct page
> > backing our device memory, so if that is a requirement to connect to
> > Logan's work, then I don't think we will want to do it at this point.
>
> It is trivial to get the struct page for a PCI BAR.
>
> Jason