Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 would also be interested in finding out what we learned about the device attributes that people want to use for building hierarchy. We still haven't hooked up HMAT/CDAT to memory tiers. It would be good to understand and discuss on how we should make progress here. -aneesh
