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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
