linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Stephen Bates <sbates@raithlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:31:08 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c15d5997-9ba4-f7db-0e7a-a69e75df316c@deltatee.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190626065708.GB24531@lst.de>



On 2019-06-26 12:57 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 01:54:21PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Well whether it's dma_addr_t, phys_addr_t, pfn_t the result isn't all
>> that different. You still need roughly the same 'if' hooks for any
>> backed memory that isn't in the linear mapping and you can't get a
>> kernel mapping for directly.
>>
>> It wouldn't be too hard to do a similar patch set that uses something
>> like phys_addr_t instead and have a request and queue flag for support
>> of non-mappable memory. But you'll end up with very similar 'if' hooks
>> and we'd have to clean up all bio-using drivers that access the struct
>> pages directly.
> 
> We'll need to clean that mess up anyway, and I've been chugging
> along doing some of that.  A lot still assume no highmem, so we need
> to convert them over to something that kmaps anyway.  If we get
> the abstraction right that will actually help converting over to
> a better reprsentation.
> 
>> Though, we'd also still have the problem of how to recognize when the
>> address points to P2PDMA and needs to be translated to the bus offset.
>> The map-first inversion was what helped here because the driver
>> submitting the requests had all the information. Though it could be
>> another request flag and indicating non-mappable memory could be a flag
>> group like REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS -- REQ_NOMAP_FLAGS.
> 
> The assumes the request all has the same memory, which is a simplifing
> assuption.  My idea was that if had our new bio_vec like this:
> 
> struct bio_vec {
> 	phys_addr_t		paddr; // 64-bit on 64-bit systems
> 	unsigned long		len;
> };
> 
> we have a hole behind len where we could store flag.  Preferably
> optionally based on a P2P or other magic memory types config
> option so that 32-bit systems with 32-bit phys_addr_t actually
> benefit from the smaller and better packing structure.

That seems sensible. The one thing that's unclear though is how to get
the PCI Bus address when appropriate. Can we pass that in instead of the
phys_addr with an appropriate flag? Or will we need to pass the actual
physical address and then, at the map step, the driver has to some how
lookup the PCI device to figure out the bus offset?

>> If you think any of the above ideas sound workable I'd be happy to try
>> to code up another prototype.
> 
> Іt sounds workable.  To some of the first steps are cleanups independent
> of how the bio_vec is eventually going to look like.  That is making
> the DMA-API internals work on the phys_addr_t, which also unifies the
> map_resource implementation with map_page.  I plan to do that relatively
> soon.  The next is sorting out access to bios data by virtual address.
> All these need nice kmapping helper that avoid too much open coding.
> I was going to look into that next, mostly to kill the block layer
> bounce buffering code.  Similar things will also be needed at the
> scatterlist level I think.  After that we need to more audits of
> how bv_page is still used.  something like a bv_phys() helper that
> does "page_to_phys(bv->bv_page) + bv->bv_offset" might come in handy
> for example.

Ok, I should be able to help with that. When I have a chance I'll try to
look at the bv_phys() helper.

Logan

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-26 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-20 16:12 [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 01/28] block: Introduce DMA direct request type Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 02/28] block: Add dma_vec structure Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 03/28] block: Warn on mis-use of dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 04/28] block: Never bounce " Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 17:23   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:38     ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 05/28] block: Skip dma-direct bios in bio_integrity_prep() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 06/28] block: Support dma-direct bios in bio_advance_iter() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 07/28] block: Use dma_vec length in bio_cur_bytes() for dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 08/28] block: Introduce dmavec_phys_mergeable() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 09/28] block: Introduce vec_gap_to_prev() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 10/28] block: Create generic vec_split_segs() from bvec_split_segs() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 11/28] block: Create blk_segment_split_ctx Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 12/28] block: Create helper for bvec_should_split() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 13/28] block: Generalize bvec_should_split() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 14/28] block: Support splitting dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 15/28] block: Support counting dma-direct bio segments Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 16/28] block: Implement mapping dma-direct requests to SGs in blk_rq_map_sg() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 17/28] block: Introduce queue flag to indicate support for dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 18/28] block: Introduce bio_add_dma_addr() Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 19/28] nvme-pci: Support dma-direct bios Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 20/28] IB/core: Introduce API for initializing a RW ctx from a DMA address Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:49   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:59     ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 17:11       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:24         ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 21/28] nvmet: Split nvmet_bdev_execute_rw() into a helper function Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 22/28] nvmet: Use DMA addresses instead of struct pages for P2P Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 23/28] nvme-pci: Remove support for PCI_P2PDMA requests Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 24/28] block: Remove PCI_P2PDMA queue flag Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 25/28] IB/core: Remove P2PDMA mapping support in rdma_rw_ctx Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 26/28] PCI/P2PDMA: Remove SGL helpers Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 27/28] PCI/P2PDMA: Remove struct pages that back P2PDMA memory Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 28/28] memremap: Remove PCI P2PDMA page memory type Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 18:45 ` [RFC PATCH 00/28] Removing struct page from P2PDMA Dan Williams
2019-06-20 19:33   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 20:18     ` Dan Williams
2019-06-20 20:51       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-21 17:47       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-21 17:54         ` Dan Williams
2019-06-24  7:31     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 13:46       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 13:50         ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 13:55           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 16:53             ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:16               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:28                 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 18:54                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 19:37                     ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24 16:10         ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25  7:18           ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-20 19:34   ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-20 23:40     ` Dan Williams
2019-06-20 23:42       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-24  7:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-24 16:07   ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25  7:20     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-25 15:57       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-25 17:01         ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-25 19:54           ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26  6:57             ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-26 18:31               ` Logan Gunthorpe [this message]
2019-06-26 20:21                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:39                   ` Dan Williams
2019-06-26 20:54                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:55                     ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 20:45                   ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 21:00                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-26 21:18                       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27  6:32                         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:09                           ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:35                             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 16:49                               ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28  4:57                                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 16:22                                   ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 17:29                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 18:29                                       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 19:09                                         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 19:35                                           ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-07-02 22:45                                             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-02 22:52                                               ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27  9:08                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-27 16:30                       ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27 17:00                         ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-27 18:00                           ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-28 13:38                             ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-28 15:54                               ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-06-27  9:01                 ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c15d5997-9ba4-f7db-0e7a-a69e75df316c@deltatee.com \
    --to=logang@deltatee.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=sbates@raithlin.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).