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;
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make use of non-dynamic dmabuf in RDMA
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
CC:     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>
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>
 <b961e093-b14c-fcdc-e2fc-6ca00cde000c@amazon.com>
 <98463545-c27a-77e6-0a5c-a658743ce86e@amd.com>
From:   Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com>
Message-ID: <fc0e7327-a669-9870-b325-f7940ad912ee@amazon.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 09:56:50 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <98463545-c27a-77e6-0a5c-a658743ce86e@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/09/2021 14:24, Christian König wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 01.09.21 um 13:20 schrieb Gal Pressman:
>> On 24/08/2021 20:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:27:23AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/21 2:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.08.21 um 11:06 schrieb Gal Pressman:
>>>>>> On 23/08/2021 13:43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 21.08.21 um 11:16 schrieb Gal Pressman:
>>>>>>>> On 20/08/2021 17:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:58:33PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> IIUC, we're talking about three different exporter "types":
>>>>>>>> - Dynamic with move_notify (requires ODP)
>>>>>>>> - Dynamic with revoke_notify
>>>>>>>> - Static
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which changes do we need to make the third one work?
>>>>>>> Basically none at all in the framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just need to properly use the dma_buf_pin() function when you start
>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>> buffer (e.g. before you create an attachment) and the dma_buf_unpin()
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>> after you are done with the DMA-buf.
>>>>>> I replied to your previous mail, but I'll ask again.
>>>>>> Doesn't the pin operation migrate the memory to host memory?
>>>>> Sorry missed your previous reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> So are we OK with exporters implementing dma_buf_pin() without migrating the
>> memory?
> 
> I think so, yes.
> 
>> If so, do we still want a move_notify callback for non-dynamic importers? A noop?
> 
> Well we could make the move_notify callback optional, e.g. so that you get the
> new locking approach but still pin the buffers manually with dma_buf_pin().

Thanks Christian!
So the end result will look similar to the original patch I posted, where
peer2peer can be enabled without providing move_notify, correct?