From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E66D12E75; Sun, 12 May 2024 13:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715519269; cv=none; b=hez0dI9/Tc55L24g/nbJGKTrGQ1yMR+vy1ZMwLWC0YIwUv4sNjR6pdwiJjeOhNqOMQc7R4cnRQOwg8vkje33s3SjkHwFtj9XWEdb5hwMaZR6eg9H4xqriH5C6ZGzLsu0XFPF3erI4LvaHdDerltDBO3qw3iEBhiDNsiJnByhCf4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715519269; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sTyRzxnXF/xuRmh2VOKidfRqkilMa37ngVU/scAvl3c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qmFXFBmRs2YJ33y1xUEipS5mxPjI+BS05v1kkVkf+npF0loM+WEC9bMm82cII2roIcFiBXX3S/+ReqNL7MLXxp97QtX/KMThPYmm74/wFkw1STbC1XNtMiIJFCDkhooRoq8w/6ppUiChq7ZJaNhALYh0rbcJJBHHuSWd0awsypw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=oxhEzKm6; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=oxhEzKm6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="oxhEzKm6"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="oxhEzKm6" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67D875D72F; Sun, 12 May 2024 13:07:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1715519264; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pFk2lQrJDqhAqVN6zGkwW6eqg9ViLfDkQT7/TvZ4C8Q=; b=oxhEzKm6qhRTZ4J/OnYQSSj0x3597Xoh4+SyGoulvzDLeb+eVkKR0oEEVIWWhbS4iOdwq+ /QMPgyZCturYOSOvhyIVu07+UoVJRCQXkBC7YckdlqAQROuBWJUd2EJxsWZzm80Qputy8s KYnGzuZCA+NBB4iXJii3jMQc8YsaPB8= Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1715519264; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pFk2lQrJDqhAqVN6zGkwW6eqg9ViLfDkQT7/TvZ4C8Q=; b=oxhEzKm6qhRTZ4J/OnYQSSj0x3597Xoh4+SyGoulvzDLeb+eVkKR0oEEVIWWhbS4iOdwq+ /QMPgyZCturYOSOvhyIVu07+UoVJRCQXkBC7YckdlqAQROuBWJUd2EJxsWZzm80Qputy8s KYnGzuZCA+NBB4iXJii3jMQc8YsaPB8= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E14132C2; Sun, 12 May 2024 13:07:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id KTRoMR+/QGazUAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Sun, 12 May 2024 13:07:43 +0000 Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 15:07:42 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Adam Manzanares , Davidlohr Bueso Cc: "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , "jonathan.cameron@huawei.com" , "dave@stgolabs.net" , Fan Ni , "dave.jiang@intel.com" , "ira.weiny@intel.com" , "alison.schofield@intel.com" , "vishal.l.verma@intel.com" , "gourry.memverge@gmail.com" , "wj28.lee@gmail.com" , "rientjes@google.com" , "ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com" , "shradha.t@samsung.com" , "mcgrof@kernel.org" , Jim Harris , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] CXL Development Discussions Message-ID: References: <9bf86b97-319f-4f58-b658-1fe3ed0b1993@nmtadam.samsung> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.30 X-Spam-Level: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[21]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[lists.linux-foundation.org,intel.com,huawei.com,stgolabs.net,samsung.com,gmail.com,google.com,fujitsu.com,kernel.org,kvack.org,vger.kernel.org]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[] [add Davidlohr] On Wed 08-05-24 18:35:50, Adam Manzanares wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 06-05-24 19:27:10, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I would like to have a discussion with the CXL development community about > > > current outstanding issues and also invite developers interested in RAS and > > > memory tiering to participate. > > > > > > The first topic I believe we should discuss is how we can ensure as a group > > > that we are prioritizing upstream work. On a recent upstream CXL development > > > discussion call there was a call to review more work. I apologize for not > > > grabbing the link, but I believe Dave Jiang is leveraging patchwork and this > > > link should be shared with others so we can help get more reviews where needed. > > > > > > The second topic I would like to discuss is how we integrate RAS features that > > > have similar equivalents in the kernel. A CXL device can provide info about > > > memory media errors in a similar fashion to memory controllers that have EDAC > > > support. Discussions have been put on the list and I would like to hear thoughts > > > from the community about where this should go [1]. On the same topic CXL has > > > port level RAS features and the PCIe DW series touched on this issue [2] > > > > > > The third topic I would like to discuss is how we can get a set of common > > > benchmarks for memory tiering evaluations. Our team has done some initial > > > work in this space, but we want to hear more from end users about their > > > workloads of concern. There was a proposal related to this topic, but from what > > > I understand no meeting has been held [3]. > > > > > > The last topic that I believe is worth discussion is how do we come up with > > > a baseline for testing. I am aware of 3 efforts that could be used cxl_test, > > > qemu, and uunit testing framework [4]. > > > > This seems to be quite a lot for a single time slot. I think it would > > make sense to split that into more slots. WDYT? > > +1. I think the performance implications of CXL memory and how it relates > to existing memory management code tackling performance differentiated memory > would be nice to separate. I think Davidlohr would be a great candidate to > lead this discussion. WDYT Davidlohr? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs