Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1536286

Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices

From Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices
Date 2016-12-05 19:10 +0100
Message-ID <sL5Sa-7U6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <sKEIh-7zM-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sKFkZ-7QW-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL55L-7o6-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL5yN-7xB-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL5Sa-7U6-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:40:38AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> > If it is kernel only with physical addresess we don't need a uAPI for
>> > it, so I'm not sure #1 is at all related to iopmem.
>> >
>> > Most people who want #1 probably can just mmap
>> > /sys/../pci/../resourceX to get a user handle to it, or pass around
>> > __iomem pointers in the kernel. This has been asked for before with
>> > RDMA.
>> >
>> > I'm still not really clear what iopmem is for, or why DAX should ever
>> > be involved in this..
>>
>> Right, by default remap_pfn_range() does not establish DMA capable
>> mappings. You can think of iopmem as remap_pfn_range() converted to
>> use devm_memremap_pages(). Given the extra constraints of
>> devm_memremap_pages() it seems reasonable to have those DMA capable
>> mappings be optionally established via a separate driver.
>
> Except the iopmem driver claims the PCI ID, and presents a block
> interface which is really *NOT* what people who have asked for this in
> the past have wanted. IIRC it was embedded stuff eg RDMA video
> directly out of a capture card or a similar kind of thinking.
>
> It is a good point about devm_memremap_pages limitations, but maybe
> that just says to create a /sys/.../resource_dmableX ?
>
> Or is there some reason why people want a filesystem on top of BAR
> memory? That does not seem to have been covered yet..
>

I've already recommended that iopmem not be a block device and instead
be a device-dax instance. I also don't think it should claim the PCI
ID, rather the driver that wants to map one of its bars this way can
register the memory region with the device-dax core.

I'm not sure there are enough device drivers that want to do this to
have it be a generic /sys/.../resource_dmableX capability. It still
seems to be an exotic one-off type of configuration.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-25 20:40 +0100
  Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Christian König <deathsimple@vodafone.de> - 2016-11-25 21:50 +0100
    Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-25 22:20 +0100
  Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-28 18:00 +0100
    Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-11-28 19:30 +0100
      Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-11-28 22:40 +0100
        Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-28 23:30 +0100
    Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-28 20:10 +0100
      Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-30 17:30 +0100
        Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-11-30 19:10 +0100
          Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices "Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com> - 2016-12-04 14:10 +0100
          Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices "Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com> - 2016-12-04 14:50 +0100
            Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-05 18:20 +0100
              Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-12-05 18:50 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-12-05 19:10 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-12-05 19:40 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-12-05 19:50 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-05 20:20 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-12-05 20:30 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-05 20:50 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-12-05 21:00 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-12-05 21:10 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices "Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com> - 2016-12-06 09:30 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-06 17:40 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-12-06 18:00 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-06 18:30 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2016-12-06 22:50 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-12-06 23:10 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-12-06 18:20 +0100
                Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-12-05 19:10 +0100
      RE: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> - 2016-11-30 18:50 +0100
    Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com> - 2016-11-28 21:00 +0100
  Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com> - 2016-11-28 19:40 +0100

csiph-web