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: <20210819230602.GU543798@ziepe.ca> <CAKMK7uGgQWcs4Va6TGN9akHSSkmTs1i0Kx+6WpeiXWhJKpasLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210820123316.GV543798@ziepe.ca> <0fc94ac0-2bb9-4835-62b8-ea14f85fe512@amazon.com>
 <20210820143248.GX543798@ziepe.ca> <da6364b7-9621-a384-23b0-9aa88ae232e5@amazon.com>
 <fa124990-ee0c-7401-019e-08109e338042@amd.com> <e2c47256-de89-7eaa-e5c2-5b96efcec834@amazon.com>
 <6b819064-feda-b70b-ea69-eb0a4fca6c0c@amd.com> <a9604a39-d08f-6263-4c5b-a2bc9a70583d@nvidia.com>
 <20210824173228.GE543798@ziepe.ca> <1d1bd2d0-f467-4808-632b-1cca1174cfd9@nvidia.com>
 <CAPM=9txd71fisvZ1Es5Fv2mwR2vWfHJarya7oeKOm2aq6tH0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9txd71fisvZ1Es5Fv2mwR2vWfHJarya7oeKOm2aq6tH0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CADnq5_OBt2bQoWzadZ6kR46XU5QMVtzv9aB10CtE49PAotHHPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make use of non-dynamic dmabuf in RDMA
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@habana.ai>,
        Tomer Tayar <ttayar@habana.ai>,
        Yossi Leybovich <sleybo@amazon.com>,
        Alexander Matushevsky <matua@amazon.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Jianxin Xiong <jianxin.xiong@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 3:16 PM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 03:36, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/24/21 10:32 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > ...
> > >>> And yes at least for the amdgpu driver we migrate the memory to host
> > >>> memory as soon as it is pinned and I would expect that other GPU drivers
> > >>> do something similar.
> > >>
> > >> Well...for many topologies, migrating to host memory will result in a
> > >> dramatically slower p2p setup. For that reason, some GPU drivers may
> > >> want to allow pinning of video memory in some situations.
> > >>
> > >> Ideally, you've got modern ODP devices and you don't even need to pin.
> > >> But if not, and you still hope to do high performance p2p between a GPU
> > >> and a non-ODP Infiniband device, then you would need to leave the pinned
> > >> memory in vidmem.
> > >>
> > >> So I think we don't want to rule out that behavior, right? Or is the
> > >> thinking more like, "you're lucky that this old non-ODP setup works at
> > >> all, and we'll make it work by routing through host/cpu memory, but it
> > >> will be slow"?
> > >
> > > I think it depends on the user, if the user creates memory which is
> > > permanently located on the GPU then it should be pinnable in this way
> > > without force migration. But if the memory is inherently migratable
> > > then it just cannot be pinned in the GPU at all as we can't
> > > indefinately block migration from happening eg if the CPU touches it
> > > later or something.
> > >
> >
> > OK. I just want to avoid creating any API-level assumptions that dma_buf_pin()
> > necessarily implies or requires migrating to host memory.
>
> I'm not sure we should be allowing dma_buf_pin at all on
> non-migratable memory, what's to stop someone just pinning all the
> VRAM and making the GPU unuseable?

In a lot of cases we have GPUs with more VRAM than system memory, but
we allow pinning in system memory.

Alex

>
> I understand not considering more than a single user in these
> situations is enterprise thinking, but I do worry about pinning is
> always fine type of thinking when things are shared or multi-user.
>
> My impression from this is we've designed hardware that didn't
> consider the problem, and now to let us use that hardware in horrible
> ways we should just allow it to pin all the things.
>
> Dave.