From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Shrinnker <david@fromorbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
hughd@google.com, yinghan@google.com,
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 22/28] memcg,list_lru: duplicate LRUs upon kmemcg creation
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:14:04 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1364548450-28254-23-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364548450-28254-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>
When a new memcg is created, we need to open up room for its descriptors
in all of the list_lrus that are marked per-memcg. The process is quite
similar to the one we are using for the kmem caches: we initialize the
new structures in an array indexed by kmemcg_id, and grow the array if
needed. Key data like the size of the array will be shared between the
kmem cache code and the list_lru code (they basically describe the same
thing)
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
include/linux/list_lru.h | 37 ++++++++++-
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 12 ++++
lib/list_lru.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
mm/memcontrol.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
mm/slab_common.c | 1 -
5 files changed, 285 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
index 02796da..d6cf126 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
@@ -16,12 +16,47 @@ struct list_lru_node {
long nr_items;
} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+/*
+ * This is supposed to be M x N matrix, where M is kmem-limited memcg,
+ * and N is the number of nodes.
+ */
+struct list_lru_array {
+ struct list_lru_node node[1];
+};
+
struct list_lru {
struct list_lru_node node[MAX_NUMNODES];
nodemask_t active_nodes;
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+ struct list_head lrus;
+ struct list_lru_array **memcg_lrus;
+#endif
};
-int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru);
+struct mem_cgroup;
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void);
+int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num);
+void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru);
+void list_lru_destroy_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+#else
+static inline void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+}
+#endif
+
+int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled);
+static inline int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return __list_lru_init(lru, false);
+}
+
+static inline int list_lru_init_memcg(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return __list_lru_init(lru, true);
+}
+
int list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
int list_lru_del(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
long list_lru_count_nodemask(struct list_lru *lru, nodemask_t *nodes_to_count);
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 4c24249..ee3199d 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <linux/vm_event_item.h>
#include <linux/hardirq.h>
#include <linux/jump_label.h>
+#include <linux/list_lru.h>
struct mem_cgroup;
struct page_cgroup;
@@ -469,6 +470,12 @@ void memcg_update_array_size(int num_groups);
struct kmem_cache *
__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
+int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+
+int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
+ bool new_lru);
+
void mem_cgroup_destroy_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep);
void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s);
@@ -632,6 +639,11 @@ memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
static inline void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
{
}
+
+static inline int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
#endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
diff --git a/lib/list_lru.c b/lib/list_lru.c
index 0f08ed6..a9616a0 100644
--- a/lib/list_lru.c
+++ b/lib/list_lru.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/list_lru.h>
+#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
int
list_lru_add(
@@ -184,18 +185,100 @@ list_lru_dispose_all(
return total;
}
-int
-list_lru_init(
- struct list_lru *lru)
+/*
+ * This protects the list of all LRU in the system. One only needs
+ * to take when registering an LRU, or when duplicating the list of lrus.
+ * Transversing an LRU can and should be done outside the lock
+ */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+static LIST_HEAD(all_memcg_lrus);
+
+static void list_lru_init_one(struct list_lru_node *lru)
{
+ spin_lock_init(&lru->lock);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->list);
+ lru->nr_items = 0;
+}
+
+struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void)
+{
+ struct list_lru_array *lru_array;
int i;
- nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) {
- spin_lock_init(&lru->node[i].lock);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->node[i].list);
- lru->node[i].nr_items = 0;
+ lru_array = kzalloc(nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct list_lru_node),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!lru_array)
+ return NULL;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids ; i++)
+ list_lru_init_one(&lru_array->node[i]);
+
+ return lru_array;
+}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->lrus);
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_add(&lru->lrus, &all_memcg_lrus);
+ ret = memcg_new_lru(lru);
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct list_lru *lru;
+
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
+ ret = memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(lru, num, false);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+ }
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ if (!lru->memcg_lrus)
+ return;
+
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_del(&lru->lrus);
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+}
+
+void list_lru_destroy_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ struct list_lru *lru;
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
+ kfree(lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)]);
+ lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)] = NULL;
+ /* everybody must beaware that this memcg is no longer valid */
+ wmb();
}
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+}
+#endif
+
+int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++)
+ list_lru_init_one(&lru->node[i]);
+
+ if (memcg_enabled)
+ return memcg_init_lru(lru);
return 0;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_init);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__list_lru_init);
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index ecdae39..c6c90d8 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2988,16 +2988,30 @@ int memcg_update_cache_sizes(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
ret = memcg_update_all_caches(num+1);
- if (ret) {
- ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
- memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /*
+ * We should make sure that the array size is not updated until we are
+ * done; otherwise we have no easy way to know whether or not we should
+ * grow the array.
+ */
+ ret = memcg_update_all_lrus(num + 1);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
memcg->kmemcg_id = num;
+
+ memcg_update_array_size(num + 1);
+
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->memcg_slab_caches);
mutex_init(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
+
return 0;
+out:
+ ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
+ memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
+ return ret;
}
static size_t memcg_caches_array_size(int num_groups)
@@ -3081,6 +3095,129 @@ int memcg_update_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *s, int num_groups)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * memcg_kmem_update_lru_size - fill in kmemcg info into a list_lru
+ *
+ * @lru: the lru we are operating with
+ * @num_groups: how many kmem-limited cgroups we have
+ * @new_lru: true if this is a new_lru being created, false if this
+ * was triggered from the memcg side
+ *
+ * Returns 0 on success, and an error code otherwise.
+ *
+ * This function can be called either when a new kmem-limited memcg appears,
+ * or when a new list_lru is created. The work is roughly the same in two cases,
+ * but in the later we never have to expand the array size.
+ *
+ * This is always protected by the all_lrus_mutex from the list_lru side. But
+ * a race can still exists if a new memcg becomes kmem limited at the same time
+ * that we are registering a new memcg. Creation is protected by the
+ * memcg_mutex, so the creation of a new lru have to be protected by that as
+ * well.
+ *
+ * The lock ordering is that the memcg_mutex needs to be acquired before the
+ * lru-side mutex.
+ */
+int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
+ bool new_lru)
+{
+ struct list_lru_array **new_lru_array;
+ struct list_lru_array *lru_array;
+
+ lru_array = lru_alloc_array();
+ if (!lru_array)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ /*
+ * When a new LRU is created, we still need to update all data for that
+ * LRU. The procedure for late LRUs and new memcgs are quite similar, we
+ * only need to make sure we get into the loop even if num_groups <
+ * memcg_limited_groups_array_size.
+ */
+ if ((num_groups > memcg_limited_groups_array_size) || new_lru) {
+ int i;
+ struct list_lru_array **old_array;
+ size_t size = memcg_caches_array_size(num_groups);
+ int num_memcgs = memcg_limited_groups_array_size;
+
+ new_lru_array = kzalloc(size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!new_lru_array) {
+ kfree(lru_array);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; lru->memcg_lrus && (i < num_memcgs); i++) {
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus && lru->memcg_lrus[i])
+ continue;
+ new_lru_array[i] = lru->memcg_lrus[i];
+ }
+
+ old_array = lru->memcg_lrus;
+ lru->memcg_lrus = new_lru_array;
+ /*
+ * We don't need a barrier here because we are just copying
+ * information over. Anybody operating in memcg_lrus will
+ * either follow the new array or the old one and they contain
+ * exactly the same information. The new space in the end is
+ * always empty anyway.
+ */
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus)
+ kfree(old_array);
+ }
+
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus) {
+ lru->memcg_lrus[num_groups - 1] = lru_array;
+ /*
+ * Here we do need the barrier, because of the state transition
+ * implied by the assignment of the array. All users should be
+ * able to see it
+ */
+ wmb();
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * This is called with the LRU-mutex being held.
+ */
+int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *iter;
+
+ if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
+ return 0;
+
+ for_each_mem_cgroup(iter) {
+ int ret;
+ int memcg_id = memcg_cache_id(iter);
+ if (memcg_id < 0)
+ continue;
+
+ ret = memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(lru, memcg_id + 1, true);
+ if (ret) {
+ mem_cgroup_iter_break(root_mem_cgroup, iter);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * We need to call back and forth from memcg to LRU because of the lock
+ * ordering. This complicates the flow a little bit, but since the memcg mutex
+ * is held through the whole duration of memcg creation, we need to hold it
+ * before we hold the LRU-side mutex in the case of a new list creation as
+ * well.
+ */
+int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ int ret;
+ mutex_lock(&memcg_create_mutex);
+ ret = __memcg_init_lru(lru);
+ mutex_unlock(&memcg_create_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
int memcg_register_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *s,
struct kmem_cache *root_cache)
{
@@ -5775,8 +5912,10 @@ static void kmem_cgroup_destroy(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
* possible that the charges went down to 0 between mark_dead and the
* res_counter read, so in that case, we don't need the put
*/
- if (memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead(memcg))
+ if (memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead(memcg)) {
+ list_lru_destroy_memcg(memcg);
mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
+ }
}
#else
static int memcg_init_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 3f3cd97..2470d11 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -102,7 +102,6 @@ int memcg_update_all_caches(int num_memcgs)
goto out;
}
- memcg_update_array_size(num_memcgs);
out:
mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
return ret;
--
1.8.1.4
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-29 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-29 9:13 [PATCH v2 00/28] memcg-aware slab shrinking Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 01/28] super: fix calculation of shrinkable objects for small numbers Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 7:16 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 02/28] vmscan: take at least one pass with shrinkers Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 7:26 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 8:10 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-10 5:09 ` Ric Mason
2013-04-10 7:32 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-10 9:19 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-08 8:42 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-08 8:47 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 9:01 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-08 9:05 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-09 0:55 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-09 1:29 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-09 2:05 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-09 7:43 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-09 9:08 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-09 12:30 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-10 2:51 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-10 7:30 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-10 8:19 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-10 8:46 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-04-10 10:07 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-10 14:03 ` JoonSoo Kim
2013-04-11 0:41 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-11 7:27 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-04-11 7:27 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-04-11 7:27 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-04-11 9:25 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <20130410025115.GA5872-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org>
2013-04-10 8:46 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-04-10 8:46 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 03/28] dcache: convert dentry_stat.nr_unused to per-cpu counters Glauber Costa
2013-04-05 1:09 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-05 1:15 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-08 9:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 13:18 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-09 8:02 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-09 12:47 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 04/28] dentry: move to per-sb LRU locks Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 05/28] dcache: remove dentries from LRU before putting on dispose list Glauber Costa
2013-04-03 6:51 ` Sha Zhengju
2013-04-03 8:55 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-04 6:19 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-04 6:56 ` Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 06/28] mm: new shrinker API Glauber Costa
2013-04-05 1:09 ` Greg Thelen
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 07/28] shrinker: convert superblock shrinkers to new API Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 08/28] list: add a new LRU list type Glauber Costa
2013-04-04 21:53 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-05 1:20 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-05 8:01 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-06 0:04 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 09/28] inode: convert inode lru list to generic lru list code Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 10/28] dcache: convert to use new lru list infrastructure Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 13:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 23:28 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 11/28] list_lru: per-node " Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 12/28] shrinker: add node awareness Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 13/28] fs: convert inode and dentry shrinking to be node aware Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 14/28] xfs: convert buftarg LRU to generic code Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 15/28] xfs: convert dquot cache lru to list_lru Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 16/28] fs: convert fs shrinkers to new scan/count API Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:13 ` [PATCH v2 17/28] drivers: convert shrinkers to new count/scan API Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 18/28] shrinker: convert remaining shrinkers to " Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 19/28] hugepage: convert huge zero page shrinker to new shrinker API Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 20/28] shrinker: Kill old ->shrink API Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 21/28] vmscan: also shrink slab in memcg pressure Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 7:46 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 8:51 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-03 10:11 ` Sha Zhengju
2013-04-03 10:43 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-04 9:35 ` Sha Zhengju
2013-04-05 8:25 ` Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2013-04-01 8:05 ` [PATCH v2 22/28] memcg,list_lru: duplicate LRUs upon kmemcg creation Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 8:22 ` Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 23/28] lru: add an element to a memcg list Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 8:18 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 8:29 ` Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 24/28] list_lru: also include memcg lists in counts and scans Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 25/28] list_lru: per-memcg walks Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 26/28] memcg: per-memcg kmem shrinking Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 8:31 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 8:48 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 9:01 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-04-01 9:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 9:35 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 27/28] list_lru: reclaim proportionaly between memcgs and nodes Glauber Costa
2013-03-29 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 28/28] super: targeted memcg reclaim Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 12:38 ` [PATCH v2 00/28] memcg-aware slab shrinking Serge Hallyn
2013-04-01 12:45 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-01 14:12 ` Serge Hallyn
2013-04-08 8:11 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-02 4:58 ` Dave Chinner
2013-04-02 7:55 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1364548450-28254-23-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox