Re: [External] [LSF/MM/BPF BoF] Session for CXL memory

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 24, 2023, at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 14:20:42 -0800
> > "Viacheslav A.Dubeyko" <viacheslav.dubeyko@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> CC: LSF/MM/BPF mailing list. Sorry, missed the list.
> >> 
> >>> On Jan 6, 2023, at 11:51 AM, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko <viacheslav.dubeyko@bytedance.com> 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.