From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"Gohad, Tushar" <tushar.gohad@intel.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Kanchan Joshi" <joshi.k@samsung.com>,
"Anuj Gupta" <anuj20.g@samsung.com>,
"Nitesh Shetty" <nj.shetty@samsung.com>,
"lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] dmabuf backed read/write
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 11:38:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <82f0e957-94ef-45d6-971b-951540bce136@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYI5S1puAZ-rPvlC@kbusch-mbp>
On 2/3/26 18:07, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 02:29:55PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Good day everyone,
>>
...
>> Tushar was helping and mention he got good numbers for P2P transfers
>> compared to bouncing it via RAM. Anuj, Kanchan and Nitesh also
>> previously reported encouraging results for system memory backed
>> dma-buf for optimising IOMMU overhead, quoting Anuj:
>>
>> - STRICT: before = 570 KIOPS, after = 5.01 MIOPS
>> - LAZY: before = 1.93 MIOPS, after = 5.01 MIOPS
>> - PASSTHROUGH: before = 5.01 MIOPS, after = 5.01 MIOPS
>
> Thanks for submitting the topic. The performance wins look great, but
> I'm a little surpised passthrough didn't show any difference. We're
> still skipping a bit of transformations with the dmabuf compared to not
> having it, so maybe it's just a matter of crafting the right benchmark
> to show the benefit.
My first thought was that hardware couldn't push more and would
be great to have idle numbers, but Anuj already demystified it.
> Anyway, I look forward to the next version of this feature. I promise to
> have more cycles to review and test the v3.
Thanks! And in general, IMHO at this point waiting for next
version would be more time efficient for reviewers.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-04 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20260204153051epcas5p1c2efd01ef32883680fed2541f9fca6c2@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
2026-02-03 14:29 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] dmabuf backed read/write Pavel Begunkov
2026-02-03 18:07 ` Keith Busch
2026-02-04 6:07 ` Anuj Gupta/Anuj Gupta
2026-02-04 11:38 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2026-02-04 15:26 ` Nitesh Shetty
2026-02-05 3:12 ` Ming Lei
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=82f0e957-94ef-45d6-971b-951540bce136@gmail.com \
--to=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=anuj20.g@samsung.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=joshi.k@samsung.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=nj.shetty@samsung.com \
--cc=tushar.gohad@intel.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