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

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>]

Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 9:51 PM David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> 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@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. 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