[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ce9026f-871e-d50a-20cf-19f7e2d90649@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:03:33 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Serguei Sagalovitch <serguei.sagalovitch@....com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
"Sander, Ben" <ben.sander@....com>,
"Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
"Blinzer, Paul" <Paul.Blinzer@....com>,
"Linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <Linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices
On 11/22/2016 11:49 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Yes, agreed. My idea with exposing vram sections using numa nodes wasn't
> to reuse all the existing allocation policies directly, those won't work.
> So at boot-up your default numa policy would exclude any vram nodes.
>
> But I think (as an -mm layman) that numa gives us a lot of the tools and
> policy interface that we need to implement what we want for gpus.
Are you suggesting creating NUMA nodes for video RAM (I assume that's
what you mean by vram) where that RAM is not at all CPU-accessible?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists