From: Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@huawei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 10:58:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a612bf4ff68c2f6a33f01eb06cc97100a0036332.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAPL-u-dFp7PwPH6DfbYdnY8xaGsHz3tRQ0CPGVkiqURvdN8=A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 14:22 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> Changes since v2
> ================
> * Updated the design and examples to use "rank" instead of device ID
> to determine the order between memory tiers for better flexibility.
>
> Overview
> ========
>
> The current kernel has the basic memory tiering support: Inactive
> pages on a higher tier NUMA node can be migrated (demoted) to a lower
> tier NUMA node to make room for new allocations on the higher tier
> NUMA node. Frequently accessed pages on a lower tier NUMA node can be
> migrated (promoted) to a higher tier NUMA node to improve the
> performance.
>
> In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a
> demotion path relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created during
> the kernel initialization and updated when a NUMA node is hot-added or
> hot-removed. The current implementation puts all nodes with CPU into
> the top tier, and builds the tier hierarchy tier-by-tier by
> establishing the per-node demotion targets based on the distances
> between nodes.
>
> This current memory tier kernel interface needs to be improved for
> several important use cases:
>
> * The current tier initialization code always initializes
> each memory-only NUMA node into a lower tier. But a memory-only
> NUMA node may have a high performance memory device (e.g. a DRAM
> device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on
> a virtual machine) and should be put into a higher tier.
>
> * The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top
> tier. But on a system with HBM (e.g. GPU memory) devices, these
> memory-only HBM NUMA nodes should be in the top tier, and DRAM nodes
> with CPUs are better to be placed into the next lower tier.
>
> * Also because the current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes
> into the top tier, when a CPU is hot-added (or hot-removed) and
> triggers a memory node from CPU-less into a CPU node (or vice
> versa), the memory tier hierarchy gets changed, even though no
> memory node is added or removed. This can make the tier
> hierarchy unstable and make it difficult to support tier-based
> memory accounting.
>
> * A higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the
> next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
> node from any lower tier. This strict, hard-coded demotion order
> does not work in all use cases (e.g. some use cases may want to
> allow cross-socket demotion to another node in the same demotion
> tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is out of
> space), and has resulted in the feature request for an interface to
> override the system-wide, per-node demotion order from the
> userspace. This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page
> allocation fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are
> out of space: The page allocation can fall back to any node from
> any lower tier, whereas the demotion order doesn't allow that.
>
> * There are no interfaces for the userspace to learn about the memory
> tier hierarchy in order to optimize its memory allocations.
>
> I'd like to propose revised memory tier kernel interfaces based on
> the discussions in the threads:
>
> - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220425201728.5kzm4seu7rep7ndr@offworld/T/
> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220426114300.00003ad8@Huawei.com/t/
> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/867bc216386eb6cbf54648f23e5825830f5b922e.camel@intel.com/T/
> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/d6314cfe1c7898a6680bed1e7cc93b0ab93e3155.camel@intel.com/T/
>
>
> High-level Design Ideas
> =======================
>
> * Define memory tiers explicitly, not implicitly.
>
> * Memory tiers are defined based on hardware capabilities of memory
> nodes, not their relative node distances between each other.
>
> * The tier assignment of each node is independent from each other.
> Moving a node from one tier to another tier doesn't affect the tier
> assignment of any other node.
>
> * The node-tier association is stable. A node can be reassigned to a
> different tier only under the specific conditions that don't block
> future tier-based memory cgroup accounting.
>
> * A node can demote its pages to any nodes of any lower tiers. The
> demotion target node selection follows the allocation fallback order
> of the source node, which is built based on node distances. The
> demotion targets are also restricted to only the nodes from the tiers
> lower than the source node. We no longer need to maintain a separate
> per-node demotion order (node_demotion[]).
>
>
> Sysfs Interfaces
> ================
>
> * /sys/devices/system/memtier/
>
> This is the directory containing the information about memory tiers.
>
> Each memory tier has its own subdirectory.
>
> The order of memory tiers is determined by their rank values, not by
> their memtier device names.
>
> - /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
>
> Format: ordered list of "memtier(rank)"
> Example: 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
>
> Read-only. When read, list all available memory tiers and their
> associated ranks, ordered by the rank values (from the highest
> tier to the lowest tier).
I like the idea of "possible" file. And I think we can show default
tier too. That is, if "1(128)" is the default tier (tier with DRAM),
then the list can be,
"
0/64 [1/128] 2/192
"
To make it more easier to be parsed by shell, I will prefer something
like,
"
0 64
1 128 default
2 192
"
But one line format is OK for me too.
>
> * /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/
>
> This is the directory containing the information about a particular
> memory tier, memtierN, where N is the memtier device ID (e.g. 0, 1).
>
> The memtier device ID number itself is just an identifier and has no
> special meaning, i.e. memtier device ID numbers do not determine the
> order of memory tiers.
>
> - /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/rank
>
> Format: int
> Example: 100
>
> Read-only. When read, list the "rank" value associated with memtierN.
>
> "Rank" is an opaque value. Its absolute value doesn't have any
> special meaning. But the rank values of different memtiers can be
> compared with each other to determine the memory tier order.
> For example, if we have 3 memtiers: memtier0, memtier1, memiter2, and
> their rank values are 10, 20, 15, then the memory tier order is:
> memtier0 -> memtier2 -> memtier1, where memtier0 is the highest tier
> and memtier1 is the lowest tier.
>
> The rank value of each memtier should be unique.
>
> - /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist
>
> Format: node_list
> Example: 1-2
>
> Read-only. When read, list the memory nodes in the specified tier.
>
> If a memory tier has no memory nodes, the kernel can hide the sysfs
> directory of this memory tier, though the tier itself can still be
> visible from /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible.
>
> * /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/memtier
>
> where N = 0, 1, ...
>
> Format: int or empty
> Example: 1
>
> When read, list the device ID of the memory tier that the node belongs
> to. Its value is empty for a CPU-only NUMA node.
>
> When written, the kernel moves the node into the specified memory
> tier if the move is allowed. The tier assignment of all other nodes
> are not affected.
>
> Initially, we can make this interface read-only.
>
>
> Kernel Representation
> =====================
>
> * All memory tiering code is guarded by CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY.
>
> * #define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS 3
>
> Support 3 memory tiers for now. This can be a kconfig option.
>
> * #define MEMORY_DEFAULT_TIER_DEVICE 1
>
> The default tier device that a memory node is assigned to.
>
> * struct memtier_dev {
> nodemask_t nodelist;
> int rank;
> int tier;
> } memtier_devices[MAX_MEMORY_TIERS]
>
> Store memory tiers by device IDs.
>
> * struct memtier_dev *memory_tier(int tier)
>
> Returns the memtier device for a given memory tier.
>
> * int node_tier_dev_map[MAX_NUMNODES]
>
> Map a node to its tier device ID..
>
> For each CPU-only node c, node_tier_dev_map[c] = -1.
>
>
> Memory Tier Initialization
> ==========================
>
> By default, all memory nodes are assigned to the default tier
> (MEMORY_DEFAULT_TIER_DEVICE). The default tier device has a rank value
> in the middle of the possible rank value range (e.g. 127 if the range
> is [0..255]).
>
> A device driver can move up or down its memory nodes from the default
> tier. For example, PMEM can move down its memory nodes below the
> default tier, whereas GPU can move up its memory nodes above the
> default tier.
>
> The kernel initialization code makes the decision on which exact tier
> a memory node should be assigned to based on the requests from the
> device drivers as well as the memory device hardware information
> provided by the firmware.
>
>
> Memory Tier Reassignment
> ========================
>
> After a memory node is hot-removed, it can be hot-added back to a
> different memory tier. This is useful for supporting dynamically
> provisioned CXL.mem NUMA nodes, which may connect to different
> memory devices across hot-plug events. Such tier changes should
> be compatible with tier-based memory accounting.
>
> The userspace may also reassign an existing online memory node to a
> different tier. However, this should only be allowed when no pages
> are allocated from the memory node or when there are no non-root
> memory cgroups (e.g. during the system boot). This restriction is
> important for keeping memory tier hierarchy stable enough for
> tier-based memory cgroup accounting.
One way to do this is hot-remove all memory of a node, change its
memtier, then hot-add its memory.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Hot-adding/removing CPUs doesn't affect memory tier hierarchy.
>
>
> Memory Allocation for Demotion
> ==============================
>
> To allocate a new page as the demotion target for a page, the kernel
> calls the allocation function (__alloc_pages_nodemask) with the
> source page node as the preferred node and the union of all lower
> tier nodes as the allowed nodemask. The actual target node selection
> then follows the allocation fallback order that the kernel has
> already defined.
>
> The pseudo code looks like:
>
> targets = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> src_nid = page_to_nid(page);
> src_tier = memtier_devices[node_tier_dev_map[src_nid]].tier;
> for (i = src_tier + 1; i < MAX_MEMORY_TIERS; i++)
> nodes_or(targets, targets, memory_tier(i)->nodelist);
> new_page = __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp, order, src_nid, targets);
>
> The memopolicy of cpuset, vma and owner task of the source page can
> be set to refine the demotion target nodemask, e.g. to prevent
> demotion or select a particular allowed node as the demotion target.
>
>
> Memory Allocation for Promotion
> ===============================
>
> The page allocation for promotion is similar to demotion, except that (1)
> the target nodemask uses the promotion tiers, (2) the preferred node can
> be the accessing CPU node, not the source page node.
>
>
> Examples
> ========
>
> * Example 1:
>
> Node 0 & 1 are DRAM nodes, node 2 & 3 are PMEM nodes.
>
> 20
> Node 0 (DRAM) ---- Node 1 (DRAM)
> | \ / |
> | 30 40 X 40 | 30
> | / \ |
> Node 2 (PMEM) ---- Node 3 (PMEM)
> 40
>
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2 3
> 0 10 20 30 40
> 1 20 10 40 30
> 2 30 40 10 40
> 3 40 30 40 10
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/rank
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/rank:128
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/rank:192
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/nodelist
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/nodelist:0-1
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/nodelist:2-3
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/node/node*/memtier
> /sys/devices/system/node/node0/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node2/memtier:2
> /sys/devices/system/node/node3/memtier:2
>
> Demotion fallback order:
> node 0: 2, 3
> node 1: 3, 2
> node 2: empty
> node 3: empty
>
> To prevent cross-socket demotion and memory access, the user can set
> mempolicy, e.g. cpuset.mems=0,2.
>
>
> * Example 2:
>
> Node 0 & 1 are DRAM nodes.
> Node 2 is a PMEM node and closer to node 0.
>
> 20
> Node 0 (DRAM) ---- Node 1 (DRAM)
> | /
> | 30 / 40
> | /
> Node 2 (PMEM)
>
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2
> 0 10 20 30
> 1 20 10 40
> 2 30 40 10
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/rank
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/rank:128
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/rank:192
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/nodelist
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/nodelist:0-1
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/nodelist:2
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/node/node*/memtier
> /sys/devices/system/node/node0/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node2/memtier:2
>
> Demotion fallback order:
> node 0: 2
> node 1: 2
> node 2: empty
>
>
> * Example 3:
>
> Node 0 & 1 are DRAM nodes, Node 2 is a memory-only DRAM node.
>
> All nodes are in the same tier.
>
> 20
> Node 0 (DRAM) ---- Node 1 (DRAM)
> \ /
> \ 30 / 30
> \ /
> Node 2 (PMEM)
>
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2
> 0 10 20 30
> 1 20 10 30
> 2 30 30 10
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/rank
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/rank:128
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/nodelist
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/nodelist:0-2
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/node/node*/memtier
> /sys/devices/system/node/node0/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node2/memtier:1
>
> Demotion fallback order:
> node 0: empty
> node 1: empty
> node 2: empty
>
>
> * Example 4:
>
> Node 0 is a DRAM node with CPU.
> Node 1 is a PMEM node.
> Node 2 is a GPU node.
>
> 50
> Node 0 (DRAM) ---- Node 2 (GPU)
> \ /
> \ 30 / 60
> \ /
> Node 1 (PMEM)
>
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2
> 0 10 30 50
> 1 30 10 60
> 2 50 60 10
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/rank
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier0/rank:64
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/rank:128
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/rank:192
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/nodelist
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier0/nodelist:2
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/nodelist:0
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/nodelist:1
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/node/node*/memtier
> /sys/devices/system/node/node0/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memtier:2
> /sys/devices/system/node/node2/memtier:0
>
> Demotion fallback order:
> node 0: 1
> node 1: empty
> node 2: 0, 1
>
>
> * Example 5:
>
> Node 0 is a DRAM node with CPU.
> Node 1 is a GPU node.
> Node 2 is a PMEM node.
> Node 3 is a large, slow DRAM node without CPU.
>
> 100
> Node 0 (DRAM) ---- Node 1 (GPU)
> / | / |
> /40 |30 120 / | 110
> | | / |
> | Node 2 (PMEM) ---- /
> | \ /
> \ 80 \ /
> ------- Node 3 (Slow DRAM)
>
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2 3
> 0 10 100 30 40
> 1 100 10 120 110
> 2 30 120 10 80
> 3 40 110 80 10
>
> MAX_MEMORY_TIERS=4 (memtier3 is a memory tier added later).
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> 0(64), 1(128), 3(160), 2(192)
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/rank
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier0/rank:64
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/rank:128
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/rank:192
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier3/rank:160
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier*/nodelist
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier0/nodelist:1
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier1/nodelist:0
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier2/nodelist:2
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtier3/nodelist:3
>
> $ grep '' /sys/devices/system/node/node*/memtier
> /sys/devices/system/node/node0/memtier:1
> /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memtier:0
> /sys/devices/system/node/node2/memtier:2
> /sys/devices/system/node/node3/memtier:3
>
> Demotion fallback order:
> node 0: 2, 3
> node 1: 0, 3, 2
> node 2: empty
> node 3: 2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-27 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-26 21:22 RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3) Wei Xu
2022-05-27 2:58 ` Ying Huang [this message]
2022-05-27 14:05 ` Hesham Almatary
2022-05-27 16:25 ` Wei Xu
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 13:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-02 6:07 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 2:49 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 3:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 5:33 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 6:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 6:27 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 7:53 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 8:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 8:52 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 9:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 1:24 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 7:16 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:27 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/7] mm/demotion: Expose per node memory tier to sysfs Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:15 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-03 8:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 14:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-06 16:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 16:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-06 16:39 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 17:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 14:32 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-08 7:18 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:25 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:29 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/7] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:31 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-30 3:35 ` [mm/demotion] 8ebccd60c2: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/compaction.c kernel test robot
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/7] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's memory tier to MEMORY_TIER_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-01 6:29 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-01 13:49 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-02 6:36 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-03 9:04 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 10:11 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-06 10:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 11:54 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 12:09 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-06 13:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] mm/demotion: Add support to associate rank with memory tier Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-27 15:45 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-30 12:36 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-02 6:41 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/7] mm/demotion: Add support for removing node from demotion memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-02 6:43 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/7] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 15:03 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-02 7:35 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-03 15:09 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 0:43 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 4:07 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 5:26 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 6:21 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 7:42 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 8:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 8:06 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 17:07 ` Yang Shi
2022-05-27 13:40 ` RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3) Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-27 16:30 ` Wei Xu
2022-05-29 4:31 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-30 12:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-31 1:57 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-07 19:25 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 4:41 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
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=a612bf4ff68c2f6a33f01eb06cc97100a0036332.camel@intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=brice.goglin@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
--cc=jvgediya@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=weixugc@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).