From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
"Yu, Wilfred" <wilfred.yu@intel.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090818093119.GA12679@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090818131734.3d5bceb2.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:34PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:34:38 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Minchan,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:33:54PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > >> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > >> > >> Side question -
> > > >> > >> Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
> > > >> > >> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
> > > >> > >> putback_lru_page(page);
> > > >> > >> continue;
> > > >> > >> }
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
> > > >> > >> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> > > >> > > call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> > > >> > > unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> > > >> > > and again.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please read what putback_lru_page does.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
> > > >> > it will not end up in this scan again.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes it does. I said 'mostly' because there is a small hole that an
> > > >> unevictable page may be scanned but still not moved to unevictable
> > > >> list: when a page is mapped in two places, the first pte has the
> > > >> referenced bit set, the _second_ VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set, then
> > > >> page_referenced() will return 1 and shrink_page_list() will move it
> > > >> into active list instead of unevictable list. Shall we fix this rare
> > > >> case?
> > >
> > > I think it's not a big deal.
> >
> > Maybe, otherwise I should bring up this issue long time before :)
> >
> > > As you mentioned, it's rare case so there would be few pages in active
> > > list instead of unevictable list.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > When next time to scan comes, we can try to move the pages into
> > > unevictable list, again.
> >
> > Will PG_mlocked be set by then? Otherwise the situation is not likely
> > to change and the VM_LOCKED pages may circulate in active/inactive
> > list for countless times.
>
> PG_mlocked is not important in that case.
> Important thing is VM_LOCKED vma.
> I think below annotaion can help you to understand my point. :)
Hmm, it looks like pages under VM_LOCKED vma is guaranteed to have
PG_mlocked set, and so will be caught by page_evictable(). Is it?
Then I was worrying about a null problem. Sorry for the confusion!
Thanks,
Fengguang
> ----
>
> /*
> * called from munlock()/munmap() path with page supposedly on the LRU.
> *
> * Note: unlike mlock_vma_page(), we can't just clear the PageMlocked
> * [in try_to_munlock()] and then attempt to isolate the page. We must
> * isolate the page to keep others from messing with its unevictable
> * and mlocked state while trying to munlock. However, we pre-clear the
> * mlocked state anyway as we might lose the isolation race and we might
> * not get another chance to clear PageMlocked. If we successfully
> * isolate the page and try_to_munlock() detects other VM_LOCKED vmas
> * mapping the page, it will restore the PageMlocked state, unless the page
> * is mapped in a non-linear vma. So, we go ahead and SetPageMlocked(),
> * perhaps redundantly.
> * If we lose the isolation race, and the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED
> * vmas, we'll detect this in vmscan--via try_to_munlock() or try_to_unmap()
> * either of which will restore the PageMlocked state by calling
> * mlock_vma_page() above, if it can grab the vma's mmap sem.
> */
> static void munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
> {
> ...
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
"Yu, Wilfred" <wilfred.yu@intel.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090818093119.GA12679@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090818131734.3d5bceb2.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:34PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:34:38 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Minchan,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:33:54PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > >> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > >> > >> Side question -
> > > >> > >> A Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
> > > >> > >> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> A A A A A if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
> > > >> > >> A A A A A A A A A putback_lru_page(page);
> > > >> > >> A A A A A A A A A continue;
> > > >> > >> A A A A A }
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
> > > >> > >> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> > > >> > > call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> > > >> > > unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> > > >> > > and again.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please read what putback_lru_page does.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
> > > >> > it will not end up in this scan again.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes it does. I said 'mostly' because there is a small hole that an
> > > >> unevictable page may be scanned but still not moved to unevictable
> > > >> list: when a page is mapped in two places, the first pte has the
> > > >> referenced bit set, the _second_ VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set, then
> > > >> page_referenced() will return 1 and shrink_page_list() will move it
> > > >> into active list instead of unevictable list. Shall we fix this rare
> > > >> case?
> > >
> > > I think it's not a big deal.
> >
> > Maybe, otherwise I should bring up this issue long time before :)
> >
> > > As you mentioned, it's rare case so there would be few pages in active
> > > list instead of unevictable list.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > When next time to scan comes, we can try to move the pages into
> > > unevictable list, again.
> >
> > Will PG_mlocked be set by then? Otherwise the situation is not likely
> > to change and the VM_LOCKED pages may circulate in active/inactive
> > list for countless times.
>
> PG_mlocked is not important in that case.
> Important thing is VM_LOCKED vma.
> I think below annotaion can help you to understand my point. :)
Hmm, it looks like pages under VM_LOCKED vma is guaranteed to have
PG_mlocked set, and so will be caught by page_evictable(). Is it?
Then I was worrying about a null problem. Sorry for the confusion!
Thanks,
Fengguang
> ----
>
> /*
> * called from munlock()/munmap() path with page supposedly on the LRU.
> *
> * Note: unlike mlock_vma_page(), we can't just clear the PageMlocked
> * [in try_to_munlock()] and then attempt to isolate the page. We must
> * isolate the page to keep others from messing with its unevictable
> * and mlocked state while trying to munlock. However, we pre-clear the
> * mlocked state anyway as we might lose the isolation race and we might
> * not get another chance to clear PageMlocked. If we successfully
> * isolate the page and try_to_munlock() detects other VM_LOCKED vmas
> * mapping the page, it will restore the PageMlocked state, unless the page
> * is mapped in a non-linear vma. So, we go ahead and SetPageMlocked(),
> * perhaps redundantly.
> * If we lose the isolation race, and the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED
> * vmas, we'll detect this in vmscan--via try_to_munlock() or try_to_unmap()
> * either of which will restore the PageMlocked state by calling
> * mlock_vma_page() above, if it can grab the vma's mmap sem.
> */
> static void munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
> {
> ...
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
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:[~2009-08-18 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 243+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-05 2:40 [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? Wu Fengguang
2009-08-05 2:40 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-05 4:15 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-05 4:15 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-05 4:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-05 4:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-05 7:58 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 7:58 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 8:17 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 8:17 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 14:33 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 14:33 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 15:37 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 15:37 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 14:15 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 14:15 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 15:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 15:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 15:15 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 15:15 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 15:25 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 15:25 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-05 16:35 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:35 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 17:25 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 17:25 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 15:45 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 15:45 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 16:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:12 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 16:12 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 16:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 16:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-05 17:20 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 17:20 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 17:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 17:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 10:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:18 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 10:18 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 10:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-08-06 10:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 10:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 11:44 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 11:44 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 13:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 13:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 13:16 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:16 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-16 3:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 3:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 3:56 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-16 3:56 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-16 4:43 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-16 4:43 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-16 4:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 4:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:59 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-16 5:59 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-17 19:47 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-17 19:47 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-21 18:24 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-21 18:24 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-31 19:43 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 19:43 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 19:52 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-31 19:52 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-31 20:06 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 20:06 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 20:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-31 20:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-31 20:11 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 20:11 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-31 20:42 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-31 20:42 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-06 13:46 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 13:46 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 21:09 ` Jeff Dike
2009-08-06 21:09 ` Jeff Dike
2009-08-16 3:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 3:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 3:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-16 3:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-16 5:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 11:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 11:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-17 14:33 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-17 14:33 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 2:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 2:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 4:17 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 4:17 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 9:31 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-08-18 9:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 9:52 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 9:52 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 10:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 10:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 11:00 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 11:00 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 14:03 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 14:03 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-18 16:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-18 16:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 12:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 12:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 12:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 12:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 12:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 12:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 12:25 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-19 12:25 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-19 13:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 13:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 13:28 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-19 13:28 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-21 11:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-21 11:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 13:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 13:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 13:38 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-19 13:38 ` Minchan Kim
2009-08-19 14:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 14:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 13:13 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:13 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:49 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 13:49 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-07 3:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-07 3:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-07 7:54 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-07 7:54 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-07 8:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-07 8:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-06 13:11 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:11 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:08 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-06 13:08 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-07 3:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-07 3:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-12 7:48 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-12 14:31 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-12 14:31 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-13 1:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-13 1:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-13 15:46 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-13 15:46 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-13 16:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-13 16:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-13 16:26 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-13 16:26 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-13 19:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-13 19:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-13 21:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-08-13 21:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-08-14 7:16 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-14 7:16 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-14 9:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-08-14 9:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-08-14 9:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-14 9:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-14 13:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-14 13:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-15 5:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-15 5:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:09 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-16 5:09 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-16 5:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-16 5:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-17 18:04 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-17 18:04 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-18 2:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-18 2:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-02 19:30 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-09-02 19:30 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-09-03 2:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-03 2:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-04 20:06 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-09-04 20:06 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-09-04 20:57 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-04 20:57 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-18 15:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-19 12:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 12:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 13:40 ` [RFC] memcg: move definitions to .h and inline some functions Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 13:40 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-19 14:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 14:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 14:27 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-19 14:27 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-20 1:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-20 1:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-14 21:42 ` [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-14 21:42 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-14 22:37 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-14 22:37 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-15 5:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-15 5:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-13 16:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-09-13 16:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-05 17:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 17:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 19:00 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 19:00 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 19:07 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 19:07 ` Rik van Riel
2009-08-05 19:18 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-05 19:18 ` Dike, Jeffrey G
2009-08-06 9:22 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:22 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 9:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 9:35 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:35 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 9:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 9:59 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:59 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 9:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 9:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-06 10:14 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-06 10:14 ` Avi Kivity
2009-08-07 1:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-07 1:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=20090818093119.GA12679@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=wilfred.yu@intel.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.