All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linuxram@us.ibm.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090612101735.GA14498@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090611203349.6D68.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:37:04PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that
> > is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
> > distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean
> > unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met.
> > 
> > There is a heuristic that determines if the scan is worthwhile but the problem
> > is that the heuristic is not being properly applied and is basically assuming
> > zone_reclaim_mode is 1 if it is enabled. The lack of proper detection can
> > manfiest as high CPU usage as the LRU list is scanned uselessly.
> > 
> > Historically, once enabled it was depending on NR_FILE_PAGES which may
> > include swapcache pages that the reclaim_mode cannot deal with.  Patch
> > vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch by
> > Kosaki Motohiro noted that zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES) included
> > pages that were not file-backed such as swapcache and made a calculation
> > based on the inactive, active and mapped files. This is far superior
> > when zone_reclaim==1 but if RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then NR_FILE_PAGES is a
> > reasonable starting figure.
> > 
> > This patch alters how zone_reclaim() works out how many pages it might be
> > able to reclaim given the current reclaim_mode. If RECLAIM_SWAP is set
> > in the reclaim_mode it will either consider NR_FILE_PAGES as potential
> > candidates or else use NR_{IN}ACTIVE}_PAGES-NR_FILE_MAPPED to discount
> > swapcache and other non-file-backed pages.  If RECLAIM_WRITE is not set,
> > then NR_FILE_DIRTY number of pages are not candidates. If RECLAIM_SWAP is
> > not set, then NR_FILE_MAPPED are not.
> > 
> > [mmotm note: This patch should be merged with or replace
> > vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.  Kosaki?]
> > 
> > [kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com: Estimate unmapped pages minus tmpfs pages]
> > [fengguang.wu@intel.com: Fix underflow problem in Kosaki's estimate]
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 2ddcfc8..d832ba8 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2333,6 +2333,44 @@ int sysctl_min_unmapped_ratio = 1;
> >   */
> >  int sysctl_min_slab_ratio = 5;
> >  
> > +static inline unsigned long zone_unmapped_file_pages(struct zone *zone)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long file_mapped = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > +	unsigned long file_lru = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > +		zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * It's possible for there to be more file mapped pages than
> > +	 * accounted for by the pages on the file LRU lists because
> > +	 * tmpfs pages accounted for as ANON can also be FILE_MAPPED
> > +	 */
> > +	return (file_lru > file_mapped) ? (file_lru - file_mapped) : 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Work out how many page cache pages we can reclaim in this reclaim_mode */
> > +static long zone_pagecache_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
> > +{
> > +	long nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> > +	long delta = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then all file pages are considered
> > +	 * potentially reclaimable. Otherwise, we have to worry about
> > +	 * pages like swapcache and zone_unmapped_file_pages() provides
> > +	 * a better estimate
> > +	 */
> > +	if (zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP)
> > +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES);
> > +	else
> > +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone);
> > +
> > +	/* If we can't clean pages, remove dirty pages from consideration */
> > +	if (!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE))
> > +		delta += zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> 
> no use delta?
> 

delta was used twice in an interim version when it was possible to overflow
the counter. I left it as is because if another counter is added that must
be subtracted from nr_pagecache_reclaimable, it'll be tidier to patch in if
delta was there. I can take it out if you prefer.

> > +
> > +	return nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Try to free up some pages from this zone through reclaim.
> >   */
> > @@ -2355,7 +2393,6 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  		.isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
> >  	};
> >  	unsigned long slab_reclaimable;
> > -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
> >  
> >  	disable_swap_token();
> >  	cond_resched();
> > @@ -2368,11 +2405,7 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  	reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
> >  	p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
> >  
> > -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > -
> > -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
> > +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
> 
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt says
> =============================================================
> 
> min_unmapped_ratio:
> 
> This is available only on NUMA kernels.
> 
> A percentage of the total pages in each zone.  Zone reclaim will only
> occur if more than this percentage of pages are file backed and unmapped.
> This is to insure that a minimal amount of local pages is still available for
> file I/O even if the node is overallocated.
> 
> The default is 1 percent.
> 
> ==============================================================
> 
> but your code condider more addional thing. Can you please change document too?
> 

How does this look?

==============================================================
min_unmapped_ratio:

This is available only on NUMA kernels.

This is a percentage of the total pages in each zone. Zone reclaim will only
occur if more than this percentage are in a state that zone_reclaim_mode
allows to be reclaimed.

If zone_reclaim_mode has the value 4 OR'd, then the percentage is compared
against all file-backed unmapped pages including swapcache pages and tmpfs
files. Otherwise, only unmapped pages backed by normal files but not tmpfs
files and similar are considered.

The default is 1 percent.
==============================================================

> 
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Free memory by calling shrink zone with increasing
> >  		 * priorities until we have enough memory freed.
> > @@ -2419,8 +2452,6 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  {
> >  	int node_id;
> >  	int ret;
> > -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
> > -	long nr_slab_reclaimable;
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Zone reclaim reclaims unmapped file backed pages and
> > @@ -2432,12 +2463,8 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  	 * if less than a specified percentage of the zone is used by
> >  	 * unmapped file backed pages.
> >  	 */
> > -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > -	nr_slab_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE);
> > -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> > -	    nr_slab_reclaimable <= zone->min_slab_pages)
> > +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> > +	    zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE) <= zone->min_slab_pages)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone))
> > -- 
> > 1.5.6.5
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linuxram@us.ibm.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090612101735.GA14498@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090611203349.6D68.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:37:04PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that
> > is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
> > distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean
> > unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met.
> > 
> > There is a heuristic that determines if the scan is worthwhile but the problem
> > is that the heuristic is not being properly applied and is basically assuming
> > zone_reclaim_mode is 1 if it is enabled. The lack of proper detection can
> > manfiest as high CPU usage as the LRU list is scanned uselessly.
> > 
> > Historically, once enabled it was depending on NR_FILE_PAGES which may
> > include swapcache pages that the reclaim_mode cannot deal with.  Patch
> > vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch by
> > Kosaki Motohiro noted that zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES) included
> > pages that were not file-backed such as swapcache and made a calculation
> > based on the inactive, active and mapped files. This is far superior
> > when zone_reclaim==1 but if RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then NR_FILE_PAGES is a
> > reasonable starting figure.
> > 
> > This patch alters how zone_reclaim() works out how many pages it might be
> > able to reclaim given the current reclaim_mode. If RECLAIM_SWAP is set
> > in the reclaim_mode it will either consider NR_FILE_PAGES as potential
> > candidates or else use NR_{IN}ACTIVE}_PAGES-NR_FILE_MAPPED to discount
> > swapcache and other non-file-backed pages.  If RECLAIM_WRITE is not set,
> > then NR_FILE_DIRTY number of pages are not candidates. If RECLAIM_SWAP is
> > not set, then NR_FILE_MAPPED are not.
> > 
> > [mmotm note: This patch should be merged with or replace
> > vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.  Kosaki?]
> > 
> > [kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com: Estimate unmapped pages minus tmpfs pages]
> > [fengguang.wu@intel.com: Fix underflow problem in Kosaki's estimate]
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 2ddcfc8..d832ba8 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2333,6 +2333,44 @@ int sysctl_min_unmapped_ratio = 1;
> >   */
> >  int sysctl_min_slab_ratio = 5;
> >  
> > +static inline unsigned long zone_unmapped_file_pages(struct zone *zone)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long file_mapped = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > +	unsigned long file_lru = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > +		zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * It's possible for there to be more file mapped pages than
> > +	 * accounted for by the pages on the file LRU lists because
> > +	 * tmpfs pages accounted for as ANON can also be FILE_MAPPED
> > +	 */
> > +	return (file_lru > file_mapped) ? (file_lru - file_mapped) : 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Work out how many page cache pages we can reclaim in this reclaim_mode */
> > +static long zone_pagecache_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
> > +{
> > +	long nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> > +	long delta = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then all file pages are considered
> > +	 * potentially reclaimable. Otherwise, we have to worry about
> > +	 * pages like swapcache and zone_unmapped_file_pages() provides
> > +	 * a better estimate
> > +	 */
> > +	if (zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP)
> > +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES);
> > +	else
> > +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone);
> > +
> > +	/* If we can't clean pages, remove dirty pages from consideration */
> > +	if (!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE))
> > +		delta += zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> 
> no use delta?
> 

delta was used twice in an interim version when it was possible to overflow
the counter. I left it as is because if another counter is added that must
be subtracted from nr_pagecache_reclaimable, it'll be tidier to patch in if
delta was there. I can take it out if you prefer.

> > +
> > +	return nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Try to free up some pages from this zone through reclaim.
> >   */
> > @@ -2355,7 +2393,6 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  		.isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
> >  	};
> >  	unsigned long slab_reclaimable;
> > -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
> >  
> >  	disable_swap_token();
> >  	cond_resched();
> > @@ -2368,11 +2405,7 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  	reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
> >  	p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
> >  
> > -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > -
> > -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
> > +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
> 
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt says
> =============================================================
> 
> min_unmapped_ratio:
> 
> This is available only on NUMA kernels.
> 
> A percentage of the total pages in each zone.  Zone reclaim will only
> occur if more than this percentage of pages are file backed and unmapped.
> This is to insure that a minimal amount of local pages is still available for
> file I/O even if the node is overallocated.
> 
> The default is 1 percent.
> 
> ==============================================================
> 
> but your code condider more addional thing. Can you please change document too?
> 

How does this look?

==============================================================
min_unmapped_ratio:

This is available only on NUMA kernels.

This is a percentage of the total pages in each zone. Zone reclaim will only
occur if more than this percentage are in a state that zone_reclaim_mode
allows to be reclaimed.

If zone_reclaim_mode has the value 4 OR'd, then the percentage is compared
against all file-backed unmapped pages including swapcache pages and tmpfs
files. Otherwise, only unmapped pages backed by normal files but not tmpfs
files and similar are considered.

The default is 1 percent.
==============================================================

> 
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Free memory by calling shrink zone with increasing
> >  		 * priorities until we have enough memory freed.
> > @@ -2419,8 +2452,6 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  {
> >  	int node_id;
> >  	int ret;
> > -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
> > -	long nr_slab_reclaimable;
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Zone reclaim reclaims unmapped file backed pages and
> > @@ -2432,12 +2463,8 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  	 * if less than a specified percentage of the zone is used by
> >  	 * unmapped file backed pages.
> >  	 */
> > -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> > -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > -	nr_slab_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE);
> > -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> > -	    nr_slab_reclaimable <= zone->min_slab_pages)
> > +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> > +	    zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE) <= zone->min_slab_pages)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone))
> > -- 
> > 1.5.6.5
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-12 10:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-11 10:47 [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3 Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47 ` [PATCH 1/3] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 11:37   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-11 11:37     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-12 10:17     ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2009-06-12 10:17       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15  4:51       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-15  4:51         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-15 10:05         ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 10:05           ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47 ` [PATCH 2/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail zone_reclaim() as full Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 13:48   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-11 13:48     ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-12 10:36     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-12 10:36       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-12 15:44       ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-12 15:44         ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-15 10:28         ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 10:28           ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 15:58           ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-15 15:58             ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-11 10:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] Count the number of times zone_reclaim() scans and fails Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 10:47   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 11:33   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-11 11:33     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-15 21:19   ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-15 21:19     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-16  9:05     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16  9:05       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 23:30 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3 Andrew Morton
2009-06-11 23:30   ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-12 11:04   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-12 11:04     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-12 16:08     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-12 16:08       ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-15  9:42     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-15  9:42       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-15 10:56       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 10:56         ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 15:01         ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-15 15:01           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-15 15:25           ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-15 15:25             ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 12:08             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 12:08               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 12:20               ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 12:20                 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 12:30                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 12:30                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 12:57         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 12:57           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-16 13:44           ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 13:44             ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 14:51             ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-16 14:51               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-17 10:06               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-17 10:06                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-17 12:03                 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-17 12:03                   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-17 18:48                 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-06-17 18:48                   ` Christoph Lameter

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=20090612101735.GA14498@csn.ul.ie \
    --to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.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.