[ofiwg] DS/DA discussion

Hefty, Sean sean.hefty at intel.com
Tue Oct 6 10:30:29 PDT 2015

> Of the possible devices, what do they need that OFI does not yet have?
> Flags or operations to indicate that a memory should persisted (I think
> Intel gave an example of a new instruction to move data into a
> “persistence domain”)? Does it lack a “commit” or “sync” operation to make
> the remote device perform a storage-specific operation? Something else?

My main concern is that interface changes be driven by the application needs and not the hardware implementation (or even application implementation), especially when selected out of convenience.

So far, we've discussed adding:

- completion model
- 'commit or sync or flush' operation
- 'commit or sync or flush' flags
- memory registration flag

Maybe the best answers are provider specific options or prototype interfaces, with software simulation.

- Sean

More information about the ofiwg mailing list