On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:26:45AM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:35:22PM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:21:14PM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:

quoted

mlock, while certainly be able to prevent swapping out, it won't
be able to stop page moving due to:
* memory compaction in alloc_pages()
* making huge pages
* numa balance
* memory compaction in CMA

Enabling those things is a major reason to have SVA device in the
first place, providing a SW API to turn it all off seems like the
wrong direction.

I wouldn't say this is a major reason to have SVA. If we read the
history of SVA and papers, people would think easy programming due
to data struct sharing between cpu and device, and process space
isolation in device would be the major reasons for SVA. SVA also
declares it supports zero-copy while zero-copy doesn't necessarily
depend on SVA.

Once you have to explicitly make system calls to declare memory under
IO, you loose all of that.

Since you've asked the app to be explicit about the DMAs it intends to
do, there is not really much reason to use SVA for those DMAs anymore.

Let's see a non-SVA case. We are not using SVA, we can have
a memory pool by hugetlb or pin, and app can allocate memory
from this pool, and get stable I/O performance on the memory
from the pool. But device has its separate page table which
is not bound with this process, thus lacking the protection
of process space isolation. Plus, CPU and device are using
different address.

So you are relying on the platform to do the SVA for the device?

This feels like it goes back to another topic where I felt the SVA
setup uAPI should be shared and not buried into every driver's unique
ioctls.

Having something like this in a shared SVA system is somewhat less
strange.

Jason