Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote: > > > > On Jan 24, 2023, at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 14:20:42 -0800 > > "Viacheslav A.Dubeyko" <viacheslav.dubeyko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > The fabric manager is rather disconnected from the host side of things (all > > out of band communications), so it would be a stretch to build a stand alone > > topic around that for LSF-MM. If we have the right people in the room / > > online, it would be good to discuss it (so part of a wider sessions on CXL). > > I'd love to get some traction before LSFMM though! Host aspects such as > > Dynamic Capacity Devices and sharing feel more LSFMM suitable. > > > >>> I am going to share the topic in separate email. > > > > Did I miss the email, or not sent yet? That topic is obscure enough we definitely > > need some background if anyone outside of CXL folk is going to have any idea what > > we are talking about. > > > > You missed nothing. :) I am still polishing the FM related topic. Sorry, I was busy > with other tasks. > > >>> would like to suggest a special session for CXL memory > >>> related topics. > >>> > >>> How everybody feels about it? > > > > A lot of the interesting bits currently strike me as rather speculative > > (no code), so sessions might not be as productive as shooting at an > > implementation. That's less true of FM stuff as we really do need > > an outline of an architecture plus some planning on that. > > > > Could we have something to shoot at for other topics in the > > time frame? maybe... > > > > I believe even discussion before implementation could make sense. > Because, it provides the way to make the architecture/API vision more > clear and understandable by everyone sometimes. :) I have the sense that a CXL Fabric Manager discussion is more appropriate as a BoF that can pull in some storage folks that have experience with out-of-band device control. Otherwise, for the core-MM crowd it is not as relevant since that policy and control is outside of the kernel. So, I would hope to have CXL topics that have core-MM implications as the first order of business and then have a BoF for those that also want to talk about FM collaboration.
