All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit()
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:49:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7HS6P0OU6Rps8JeMJycaPd4dF5NjxV8k1y2-yosF2bdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180119133510.GD6584@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri 19-01-18 16:25:44, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> Currently mem_cgroup_resize_limit() retries to set limit after reclaiming
>> 32 pages. It makes more sense to reclaim needed amount of pages right away.
>>
>> This works noticeably faster, especially if 'usage - limit' big.
>> E.g. bringing down limit from 4G to 50M:
>>
>> Before:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             386.582382      task-clock (msec)         #    0.835 CPUs utilized
>>                  2,502      context-switches          #    0.006 M/sec
>>
>>            0.463244382 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> After:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             169.403906      task-clock (msec)         #    0.849 CPUs utilized
>>                     14      context-switches          #    0.083 K/sec
>>
>>            0.199536900 seconds time elapsed
>
> But I am not going ack this one. As already stated this has a risk
> of over-reclaim if there a lot of charges are freed along with this
> shrinking. This is more of a theoretical concern so I am _not_ going to

If you don't mind, can you explain why over-reclaim is a concern at
all? The only side effect of over reclaim I can think of is the job
might suffer a bit over (more swapins & pageins). Shouldn't this be
within the expectation of the user decreasing the limits?

> nack. If we ever see such a problem then reverting this patch should be
> pretty straghtforward.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>

>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 9d987f3e79dc..09bac2df2f12 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -2448,6 +2448,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(memcg_limit_mutex);
>>  static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>                                  unsigned long limit, bool memsw)
>>  {
>> +     unsigned long nr_pages;
>>       bool enlarge = false;
>>       int ret;
>>       bool limits_invariant;
>> @@ -2479,8 +2480,9 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>               if (!ret)
>>                       break;
>>
>> -             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1,
>> -                                     GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>> +             nr_pages = max_t(long, 1, page_counter_read(counter) - limit);
>> +             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages,
>> +                                             GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>>                       ret = -EBUSY;
>>                       break;
>>               }
>> --
>> 2.13.6
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit()
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:49:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7HS6P0OU6Rps8JeMJycaPd4dF5NjxV8k1y2-yosF2bdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180119133510.GD6584@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri 19-01-18 16:25:44, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> Currently mem_cgroup_resize_limit() retries to set limit after reclaiming
>> 32 pages. It makes more sense to reclaim needed amount of pages right away.
>>
>> This works noticeably faster, especially if 'usage - limit' big.
>> E.g. bringing down limit from 4G to 50M:
>>
>> Before:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             386.582382      task-clock (msec)         #    0.835 CPUs utilized
>>                  2,502      context-switches          #    0.006 M/sec
>>
>>            0.463244382 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> After:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             169.403906      task-clock (msec)         #    0.849 CPUs utilized
>>                     14      context-switches          #    0.083 K/sec
>>
>>            0.199536900 seconds time elapsed
>
> But I am not going ack this one. As already stated this has a risk
> of over-reclaim if there a lot of charges are freed along with this
> shrinking. This is more of a theoretical concern so I am _not_ going to

If you don't mind, can you explain why over-reclaim is a concern at
all? The only side effect of over reclaim I can think of is the job
might suffer a bit over (more swapins & pageins). Shouldn't this be
within the expectation of the user decreasing the limits?

> nack. If we ever see such a problem then reverting this patch should be
> pretty straghtforward.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>

>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 9d987f3e79dc..09bac2df2f12 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -2448,6 +2448,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(memcg_limit_mutex);
>>  static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>                                  unsigned long limit, bool memsw)
>>  {
>> +     unsigned long nr_pages;
>>       bool enlarge = false;
>>       int ret;
>>       bool limits_invariant;
>> @@ -2479,8 +2480,9 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>               if (!ret)
>>                       break;
>>
>> -             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1,
>> -                                     GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>> +             nr_pages = max_t(long, 1, page_counter_read(counter) - limit);
>> +             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages,
>> +                                             GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>>                       ret = -EBUSY;
>>                       break;
>>               }
>> --
>> 2.13.6
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin
	<aryabinin-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov
	<vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit()
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:49:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7HS6P0OU6Rps8JeMJycaPd4dF5NjxV8k1y2-yosF2bdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180119133510.GD6584-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri 19-01-18 16:25:44, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> Currently mem_cgroup_resize_limit() retries to set limit after reclaiming
>> 32 pages. It makes more sense to reclaim needed amount of pages right away.
>>
>> This works noticeably faster, especially if 'usage - limit' big.
>> E.g. bringing down limit from 4G to 50M:
>>
>> Before:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             386.582382      task-clock (msec)         #    0.835 CPUs utilized
>>                  2,502      context-switches          #    0.006 M/sec
>>
>>            0.463244382 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> After:
>>  # perf stat echo 50M > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>
>>      Performance counter stats for 'echo 50M':
>>
>>             169.403906      task-clock (msec)         #    0.849 CPUs utilized
>>                     14      context-switches          #    0.083 K/sec
>>
>>            0.199536900 seconds time elapsed
>
> But I am not going ack this one. As already stated this has a risk
> of over-reclaim if there a lot of charges are freed along with this
> shrinking. This is more of a theoretical concern so I am _not_ going to

If you don't mind, can you explain why over-reclaim is a concern at
all? The only side effect of over reclaim I can think of is the job
might suffer a bit over (more swapins & pageins). Shouldn't this be
within the expectation of the user decreasing the limits?

> nack. If we ever see such a problem then reverting this patch should be
> pretty straghtforward.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 9d987f3e79dc..09bac2df2f12 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -2448,6 +2448,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(memcg_limit_mutex);
>>  static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>                                  unsigned long limit, bool memsw)
>>  {
>> +     unsigned long nr_pages;
>>       bool enlarge = false;
>>       int ret;
>>       bool limits_invariant;
>> @@ -2479,8 +2480,9 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>               if (!ret)
>>                       break;
>>
>> -             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1,
>> -                                     GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>> +             nr_pages = max_t(long, 1, page_counter_read(counter) - limit);
>> +             if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages,
>> +                                             GFP_KERNEL, !memsw)) {
>>                       ret = -EBUSY;
>>                       break;
>>               }
>> --
>> 2.13.6
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> the body to majordomo-Bw31MaZKKs0EbZ0PF+XxCw@public.gmane.org  For more info on Linux MM,
>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org"> email-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org </a>
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-19 14:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 125+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-20 10:24 [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:24 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:24   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 10:33   ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 11:32   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 11:32     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 11:34     ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 11:34       ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 18:15       ` Shakeel Butt
2017-12-20 18:15         ` Shakeel Butt
2017-12-21 10:00         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-21 10:00           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-21 10:00           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21 ` [PATCH v2 " Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:53   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 13:53     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-09 16:58     ` [PATCH v3 " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 16:58       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 16:58       ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 16:58         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:10         ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-09 17:10           ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-09 17:10           ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-09 17:26           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:26             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 23:26             ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-09 23:26               ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-10 12:43               ` [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-10 12:43                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-10 12:43                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-10 22:31                 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-10 22:31                   ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-11 11:59                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 11:59                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-12  0:21                     ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12  0:21                       ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12  0:21                       ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12  9:08                       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-12  9:08                         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 10:42                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 10:42                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 10:42                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 12:21                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 12:21                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 12:21                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 12:46                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 12:46                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 15:23                       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 15:23                         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 15:23                         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 16:29                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 16:29                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 16:29                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 21:59                           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 21:59                             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 21:59                             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-12 12:24                             ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-12 12:24                               ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-12 22:57                               ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-12 22:57                                 ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-12 22:57                                 ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 12:29                                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:29                                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 17:04                                   ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 17:04                                     ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 17:04                                     ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 12:30                               ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:30                                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:46                                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-15 12:46                                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-15 12:53                                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:53                                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:58                                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-15 12:58                                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-09 17:08       ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:08         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:08         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:22       ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-09 17:22         ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 13:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:25   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:25   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:25   ` [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:25     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:35     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 13:35       ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 14:49       ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2018-01-19 14:49         ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 14:49         ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 15:11         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:11           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:11           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:24           ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 15:24             ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 15:31             ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:31               ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:31               ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-21 20:17           ` Andrew Morton
2018-02-21 20:17             ` Andrew Morton
2018-02-22 13:50             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 13:50               ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 14:09               ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 14:09                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:13                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 15:13                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 15:33                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:33                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:38                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 15:38                       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 15:44                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:44                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 16:01                         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 16:01                           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 16:30                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 16:30                             ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 13:32   ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 13:32     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 13:32     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-25 19:44   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-25 19:44     ` Andrey Ryabinin

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=CALvZod7HS6P0OU6Rps8JeMJycaPd4dF5NjxV8k1y2-yosF2bdA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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 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.