From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: anfei <anfei.zhou@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:21:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100329112111.GA16971@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003281341590.30570@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 03/28, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> The problem with this approach is that we could easily deplete all memory
> reserves if the oom killed task has an extremely large number of threads,
> there has always been only a single thread with TIF_MEMDIE set per cpuset
> or memcg; for systems that don't run with cpusets or memory controller,
> this has been limited to one thread with TIF_MEMDIE for the entire system.
>
> There's risk involved with suddenly allowing 1000 threads to have
> TIF_MEMDIE set and the chances of fully depleting all allowed zones is
> much higher if they allocate memory prior to exit, for example.
>
> An alternative is to fail allocations if they are failable and the
> allocating task has a pending SIGKILL. It's better to preempt the oom
> killer since current is going to be exiting anyway and this avoids a
> needless kill.
>
> That's possible if it's guaranteed that __GFP_NOFAIL allocations with a
> pending SIGKILL are granted ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS to prevent them from
> endlessly looping while making no progress.
>
> Comments?
Can't comment, I do not understand these subtleties.
But I'd like to note that fatal_signal_pending() can be true when the
process wasn't killed, but another thread does exit_group/exec.
I am not saying this is wrong, just I'd like to be sure this didn't
escape your attention.
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1610,13 +1610,21 @@ try_next_zone:
> }
>
> static inline int
> -should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> +should_alloc_retry(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> unsigned long pages_reclaimed)
> {
> /* Do not loop if specifically requested */
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> return 0;
>
> + /* Loop if specifically requested */
> + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> + return 1;
> +
> + /* Task is killed, fail the allocation if possible */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(p))
> + return 0;
> +
> /*
> * In this implementation, order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
> * means __GFP_NOFAIL, but that may not be true in other
> @@ -1635,13 +1643,6 @@ should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT && pages_reclaimed < (1 << order))
> return 1;
>
> - /*
> - * Don't let big-order allocations loop unless the caller
> - * explicitly requests that.
> - */
> - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> - return 1;
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1798,6 +1799,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
> if (!in_interrupt() &&
> ((p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) ||
> + (fatal_signal_pending(p) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) ||
> unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))))
> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> }
> @@ -1812,6 +1814,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> int migratetype)
> {
> const gfp_t wait = gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT;
> + const gfp_t nofail = gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL;
> struct page *page = NULL;
> int alloc_flags;
> unsigned long pages_reclaimed = 0;
> @@ -1876,7 +1879,7 @@ rebalance:
> goto nopage;
>
> /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
> - if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !nofail)
> goto nopage;
>
> /* Try direct reclaim and then allocating */
> @@ -1888,6 +1891,10 @@ rebalance:
> if (page)
> goto got_pg;
>
> + /* Task is killed, fail the allocation if possible */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(p) && !nofail)
> + goto nopage;
> +
> /*
> * If we failed to make any progress reclaiming, then we are
> * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
> @@ -1909,8 +1916,7 @@ rebalance:
> * made, there are no other options and retrying is
> * unlikely to help.
> */
> - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> - !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !nofail)
> goto nopage;
>
> goto restart;
> @@ -1919,7 +1925,7 @@ rebalance:
>
> /* Check if we should retry the allocation */
> pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress;
> - if (should_alloc_retry(gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> + if (should_alloc_retry(p, gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> /* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> goto rebalance;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: anfei <anfei.zhou@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:21:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100329112111.GA16971@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003281341590.30570@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 03/28, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> The problem with this approach is that we could easily deplete all memory
> reserves if the oom killed task has an extremely large number of threads,
> there has always been only a single thread with TIF_MEMDIE set per cpuset
> or memcg; for systems that don't run with cpusets or memory controller,
> this has been limited to one thread with TIF_MEMDIE for the entire system.
>
> There's risk involved with suddenly allowing 1000 threads to have
> TIF_MEMDIE set and the chances of fully depleting all allowed zones is
> much higher if they allocate memory prior to exit, for example.
>
> An alternative is to fail allocations if they are failable and the
> allocating task has a pending SIGKILL. It's better to preempt the oom
> killer since current is going to be exiting anyway and this avoids a
> needless kill.
>
> That's possible if it's guaranteed that __GFP_NOFAIL allocations with a
> pending SIGKILL are granted ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS to prevent them from
> endlessly looping while making no progress.
>
> Comments?
Can't comment, I do not understand these subtleties.
But I'd like to note that fatal_signal_pending() can be true when the
process wasn't killed, but another thread does exit_group/exec.
I am not saying this is wrong, just I'd like to be sure this didn't
escape your attention.
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1610,13 +1610,21 @@ try_next_zone:
> }
>
> static inline int
> -should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> +should_alloc_retry(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> unsigned long pages_reclaimed)
> {
> /* Do not loop if specifically requested */
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> return 0;
>
> + /* Loop if specifically requested */
> + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> + return 1;
> +
> + /* Task is killed, fail the allocation if possible */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(p))
> + return 0;
> +
> /*
> * In this implementation, order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
> * means __GFP_NOFAIL, but that may not be true in other
> @@ -1635,13 +1643,6 @@ should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT && pages_reclaimed < (1 << order))
> return 1;
>
> - /*
> - * Don't let big-order allocations loop unless the caller
> - * explicitly requests that.
> - */
> - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> - return 1;
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1798,6 +1799,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
> if (!in_interrupt() &&
> ((p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) ||
> + (fatal_signal_pending(p) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) ||
> unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))))
> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> }
> @@ -1812,6 +1814,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> int migratetype)
> {
> const gfp_t wait = gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT;
> + const gfp_t nofail = gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL;
> struct page *page = NULL;
> int alloc_flags;
> unsigned long pages_reclaimed = 0;
> @@ -1876,7 +1879,7 @@ rebalance:
> goto nopage;
>
> /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
> - if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !nofail)
> goto nopage;
>
> /* Try direct reclaim and then allocating */
> @@ -1888,6 +1891,10 @@ rebalance:
> if (page)
> goto got_pg;
>
> + /* Task is killed, fail the allocation if possible */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(p) && !nofail)
> + goto nopage;
> +
> /*
> * If we failed to make any progress reclaiming, then we are
> * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
> @@ -1909,8 +1916,7 @@ rebalance:
> * made, there are no other options and retrying is
> * unlikely to help.
> */
> - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> - !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !nofail)
> goto nopage;
>
> goto restart;
> @@ -1919,7 +1925,7 @@ rebalance:
>
> /* Check if we should retry the allocation */
> pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress;
> - if (should_alloc_retry(gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> + if (should_alloc_retry(p, gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> /* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> goto rebalance;
--
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:[~2010-03-29 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 197+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-24 16:25 [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop Anfei Zhou
2010-03-24 16:25 ` Anfei Zhou
2010-03-25 2:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-25 2:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-26 22:08 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-26 22:08 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-26 22:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-26 22:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 14:55 ` anfei
2010-03-28 14:55 ` anfei
2010-03-28 16:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 16:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-28 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-03-29 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 20:49 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed David Rientjes
2010-03-29 20:49 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 17:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 17:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 8:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:57 ` [patch -mm] oom: hold tasklist_lock when dumping tasks David Rientjes
2010-04-01 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:16 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 13:59 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 14:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 11:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 11:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:30 ` [PATCH -mm 0/4] oom: linux has threads Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:31 ` [PATCH -mm 1/4] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 18:32 ` [PATCH -mm 2/4] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 11:42 ` anfei
2010-04-06 11:42 ` anfei
2010-04-06 12:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 12:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 13:05 ` anfei
2010-04-06 13:05 ` anfei
2010-04-06 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` [PATCH -mm 3/4] oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:33 ` [PATCH -mm 4/4] oom: oom_forkbomb_penalty: move thread_group_cputime() out of task_lock() Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 14:23 ` [PATCH -mm] oom: select_bad_process: never choose tasks with badness == 0 Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-05 14:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:02 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:54 ` [patch -mm] oom: exclude tasks with badness score of 0 from being selected David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 21:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 21:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 21:22 ` [patch -mm v2] " David Rientjes
2010-04-02 21:22 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 20:55 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 20:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 22:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 22:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 23:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 18:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 18:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 15:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 15:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-08 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-08 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-09 12:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-09 12:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 16:39 ` [PATCH] oom: fix the unsafe proc_oom_score()->badness() call Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 17:43 ` [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 17:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 20:30 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:30 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 9:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 9:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 18:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 18:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 23:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 8:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:32 ` [PATCH] oom: fix the unsafe proc_oom_score()->badness() call David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 9:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 9:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 13:13 ` [PATCH 0/1] oom: fix the unsafe usage of badness() in proc_oom_score() Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 14:06 ` [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop anfei
2010-03-29 14:06 ` anfei
2010-03-29 20:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 20:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 14:29 ` anfei
2010-03-30 14:29 ` anfei
2010-03-30 20:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:30 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 6:30 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 6:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 7:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:08 ` [patch -mm] memcg: make oom killer a no-op when no killable task can be found David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 8:04 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 10:38 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-04 23:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 21:30 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-05 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 22:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-05 23:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-06 12:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-06 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-07 0:20 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-07 13:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-08 18:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-21 19:17 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-21 22:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 0:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 8:34 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-27 22:58 ` [patch -mm] oom: reintroduce and deprecate oom_kill_allocating_task David Rientjes
2010-04-28 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 7:23 ` [patch -mm] memcg: make oom killer a no-op when no killable task can be found Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 7:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 10:09 ` Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 10:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 10:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 15:39 ` Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 21:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-05-04 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-08 17:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 10:17 ` [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop Mel Gorman
2010-04-02 10:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-04 23:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-04 23:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-05 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-06 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-06 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 11:31 ` anfei
2010-03-29 11:31 ` anfei
2010-03-29 11:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 11:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 12:09 ` anfei
2010-03-29 12:09 ` anfei
2010-03-28 2:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-28 2:46 ` David Rientjes
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=20100329112111.GA16971@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anfei.zhou@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=rientjes@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 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.