resending, sorry On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Haggai Eran wrote: > > [apologies: sending again because linux-mm address was wrong] > > > > On 11/02/2016 21:18, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > Resubmit those parts under the mm subsystem, or another more > > > appropriate place. > > > > We want the feedback from linux-mm, and they are now Cced. > > Resubmit to mm means put this stuff someplace outside > drivers/infiniband in the tree and don't try and inappropriately send > memory management stuff through Doug's tree. > Jason, I beg to differ. 1) I see mm as appropriate for real memory, i.e. something that user-space apps can pass around. This is not totally true for BAR memory, for instance: a) as long as CPU initiated atomic ops are not supported on BAR space of PCIe devices. b) OTOT, CPU reading from BAR is awful (BW being abysmal,~10MB/s), while high BW writing requires use of vector instructions (at least on x86_64). Bottom line is, BAR mappings are not like plain memory. 2) Instead, I see appropriate that two sophisticated devices, like an IB NIC and a storage/accelerator device, can freely target each other for I/O, i.e. exchanging peer-to-peer PCIe transactions. And as long as the existing sophisticated initiators are confined to the RDMA subsystem, that is where this support belongs to. On a different note, this reminds me that the current patch set may be missing a way to disable the use of platform PCIe atomics when the target is the BAR of a peer device. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>