> On Jan 22, 2023, at 9:51 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote: > >> CC: LSF/MM/BPF mailing list. Sorry, missed the list. >> >>> On Jan 6, 2023, at 11:51 AM, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko <viacheslav.dubeyko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I believe CXL memory is hot topic now. I believe we have multiple topics >>> for discussion. I personally would like to discuss CXL Fabric Manager >>> and vision of FM architecture implementation. I am going to share the topic >>> in separate email. I would like to suggest a special session for CXL memory >>> related topics. >>> >>> How everybody feels about it? >>> > > I think this makes a lot of sense, thanks for suggesting it. > > Should this be a BoF or just a normal topic proposal? I assume that there > could be several different topics of interest all related to CXL.mem. > My point is to have a dedicated CXL session where we can discuss CXL related topics. And we can have likewise session if several CXL related topics will be suggested. :) > Specifically interesting would be the division of work between the kernel > and userspace to manage memory placement on systems with locally attached > CXL. And, further, what APIs userspace would have at its disposal for > explicit optimization of this placement that would exist beyond what is > available for NUMA. > Yes, I think this could be important discussion. Because, for example, I am working on figuring out how functionality can be distributed among user-space, kernel-space, and firmware for the case of Fabric Manager. And I believe it could be a good topic that I have in mind. > I assume we might also want to chat about CXL 2.0 extensions that would be > useful, especially for cloud providers. > What CXL 2.0 extensions would be useful for cloud providers from your point of view? Thanks, Slava.
