From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:37:59 +1000
Subject: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
In-Reply-To: <08c32f0d-6c7c-b65f-6453-dde0d7c173d1@deltatee.com>
References: <1490911959-5146-1-git-send-email-logang@deltatee.com>
 <1491974532.7236.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <5ac22496-56ec-025d-f153-140001d2a7f9@deltatee.com>
 <1492034124.7236.77.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <81888a1e-eb0d-cbbc-dc66-0a09c32e4ea2@deltatee.com>
 <20170413232631.GB24910@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20170414041656.GA30694@obsidianresearch.com>
 <08c32f0d-6c7c-b65f-6453-dde0d7c173d1@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <1492169879.25766.4.camel@kernel.crashing.org>

On Thu, 2017-04-13@22:40 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> On 13/04/17 10:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I'd suggest just detecting if there is any translation in bus
> > addresses anywhere and just hard disabling P2P on such systems.
> 
> That's a fantastic suggestion. It simplifies things significantly.
> Unless there are any significant objections I think I will plan on
> doing
> that.

I object.

> > On modern hardware with 64 bit BARs there is very little reason to
> > have translation, so I think this is a legacy feature.
> 
> Yes, p2pmem users are likely to be designing systems around it (ie
> JBOFs) and not trying to shoehorn it onto legacy architectures.
> 
> At the very least, it makes sense to leave it out and if someone
> comes
> along who cares they can put in the effort to support the address
> translation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Logan