On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 4:22 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 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. > > > > 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. > > Yeah, in addition, how CXL hierarchy interacts with memory tiering may > be an interesting topic too. > > > > > I assume we might also want to chat about CXL 2.0 extensions that would be > > useful, especially for cloud providers. > > > > I'd be happy to join in any of the proposals for these topics, just let me > > know! > > +1 for me. > I am also interested in these discussions.
