On 12/4/18 1:57 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > Fully correct mind if i steal that perfect summary description next time > i post ? I am so bad at explaining thing :) Go for it! > Intention is to allow program to do everything they do with mbind() today > and tomorrow with the HMAT patchset and on top of that to also be able to > do what they do today through API like OpenCL, ROCm, CUDA ... So it is one > kernel API to rule them all ;) While I appreciate the exhaustive scope of such a project, I'm really worried that if we decided to use this for our "HMAT" use cases, we'll be bottlenecked behind this project while *it* goes through 25 revisions over 4 or 5 years like HMM did. So, should we just "park" the enhancements to the existing NUMA interfaces and infrastructure (think /sys/devices/system/node) and wait for this to go in? Do we try to develop them in parallel and make them consistent? Or, do we just ignore each other and make Andrew sort it out in a few years? :)
