On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Ira Weiny wrote: > Gregory Price wrote:
I think we're largely in agreement here, so trimming a bunch of this. > > > > The question is ultimately how much flexibility you need to shuffle this > > capacity from one guest to another. > > Yep. And how much control one needs over which exact CXL/DAX devices the > memory comes from. As you know from our community calls that is one thing > I'm not sure the private node idea is great at. But it could be that is > not really required. Or is best handled as a carve out. > If you can do Device<->Node mappings, then this is trivial. If you need more specific handling, then private nodes are not the way. The intent of private nodes is to make mmap()/malloc() etc functional in a heterogenous memory world, which is explicitly different than "give me a specific chunk of physical capacity". Which, tl;dr: "There's a real argument for just handing guest_memfd a chunk of unmapped memory and making it deal with the problem". (shared gmem is... odd... given the original intent not do this :P) ~Gregory
