From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
greentime@andestech.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com,
vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:34:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
christoffer.dall@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
kirill@shutemov.name, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
steve.capper@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz, shakeelb@google.com,
rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com, greentime@andestech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:34:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
greentime@andestech.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com,
vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:34:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, greentime@andestech.com,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:34:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
greentime@andestech.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com,
vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:34:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
greentime@andestech.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com,
vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:34:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:30:18AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Also, s390 (of course, who else) has a fun custom page-table allocator
for reasons that don't apply to many other archs.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-16 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-16 6:21 [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:33 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:21 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:21 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:21 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-16 6:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-16 6:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-16 6:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-16 6:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 13:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-16 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-17 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-16 7:10 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 7:10 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 7:10 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 7:10 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-16 12:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:51 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-16 12:39 ` Anshuman Khandual
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=20190116123427.GE10803@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=greentime@andestech.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.