[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ofa-general] Re: Demand paging for memory regions
    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
    > > Well, certainly today the memfree IB devices store the page tables in
    > > host memory so they are already designed to hang onto packets during
    > > the page lookup over PCIE, adding in faulting makes this time
    > > larger.
    > You really do not need a page table to use it. What needs to be maintained
    > is knowledge on both side about what pages are currently shared across
    > RDMA. If the VM decides to reclaim a page then the notification is used to
    > remove the remote entry. If the remote side then tries to access the page
    > again then the page fault on the remote side will stall until the local
    > page has been brought back. RDMA can proceed after both sides again agree
    > on that page now being sharable.

    HPC environments won't be amenable to a pessimistic approach of
    synchronizing before every data transfer. RDMA is assumed to be a
    low-level data movement mechanism that has no implied
    synchronization. In some parallel programming models, it's not
    uncommon to use RDMA to send 8-byte messages. It can be difficult to
    make and hold guarantees about in-memory pages when many concurrent
    RDMA operations are in flight (not uncommon in reasonably large
    machines). Some of the in-memory page information could be shared
    with some form of remote caching strategy but then it's a different
    problem with its own scalability challenges.

    I think there are very potential clients of the interface when an
    optimistic approach is used. Part of the trick, however, has to do
    with being able to re-start transfers instead of buffering the data
    or making guarantees about delivery that could cause deadlock (as was
    alluded to earlier in this thread). InfiniBand is constrained in
    this regard since it requires message-ordering between endpoints (or
    queue pairs). One could argue that this is still possible with IB,
    at the cost of throwing more packets away when a referenced page is
    not in memory. With this approach, the worse case demand paging
    scenario is met when the active working set of referenced pages is
    larger than the amount physical memory -- but HPC applications are
    already bound by this anyway.

    You'll find that Quadrics has the most experience in this area and
    that their entire architecture is adapted to being optimistic about
    demand paging in RDMA transfers -- they've been maintaining a patchset
    to do this for years.

    . . christian

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-13 03:05    [W:0.024 / U:63.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site