Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote: > > > > 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. :) It worked well last time to have individual CXL topic proposals that could later be grouped into multiple sessions by the planning committee. So yes, as you mention above do send separate mails with the finer grained CXL topic in the "Subject:" so it does not get lost in the shuffle. > > 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? ...or even CXL 3.0 given that specification is released now.
