On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 07:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote: [ . . . ] > > Paul is working on a platform that is more advance that the one HMM try > > to address and i believe the x86 platform will not have functionality > > such a CAPI, at least it is not part of any roadmap i know about for > > x86. > > We will be one of the first users of Paul's Platform. Please do not do > crazy stuff but give us a sane solution where we can control the > hardware. No strange VM hooks that automatically move stuff back and forth > please. If you do this we will have to disable them anyways because they > would interfere with our needs to have the code not be disturbed by random > OS noise. We need detailed control as to when and how we move data. I completely agree that some critically important use cases, such as yours, will absolutely require that the application explicitly choose memory placement and have the memory stay there. Requirement 2 was supposed to be getting at this by saying "explicitly or implicitly allocated", with the "explicitly" calling out your use case. How should I reword this to better bring this out? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>