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

[Duen-wen Hsiao <duenwen@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

Good morning,

I would also be interested in the discussion as well. Please include me for
the CXL related discussion.

Thanks.

Duen-wen Hsiao

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.
>
> 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!
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2222 bytes --]