From: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: "Leonardo Bras" <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Shuah Khan" <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun@kernel.org>,
"Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@kernel.org>,
"Lorenzo Stoakes" <ljs@kernel.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@kernel.org>,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
"Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>, "Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>,
"Pedro Falcato" <pfalcato@suse.de>,
"Brendan Jackman" <jackmanb@google.com>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, "Zi Yan" <ziy@nvidia.com>,
"Harry Yoo" <harry@kernel.org>, "Hao Li" <hao.li@linux.dev>,
"Christoph Lameter" <cl@gentwo.org>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
"Chris Li" <chrisl@kernel.org>,
"Kairui Song" <kasong@tencent.com>,
"Kemeng Shi" <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
"Nhat Pham" <nphamcs@gmail.com>, "Baoquan He" <bhe@redhat.com>,
"Barry Song" <baohua@kernel.org>,
"Youngjun Park" <youngjun.park@lge.com>,
"Qi Zheng" <qi.zheng@linux.dev>,
"Shakeel Butt" <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
"Axel Rasmussen" <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
"Yuanchu Xie" <yuanchu@google.com>, "Wei Xu" <weixugc@google.com>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Feng Tang" <feng.tang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Dapeng Mi" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>, "Marco Elver" <elver@google.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Li RongQing" <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
"Eric Biggers" <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Nicolas Schier" <nsc@kernel.org>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>,
"Douglas Anderson" <dianders@chromium.org>,
"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Pasha Tatashin" <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
"Coiby Xu" <coxu@redhat.com>,
"Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
"Marcelo Tosatti" <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Introducing pw_lock() and per-cpu queue & flush work
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 17:49:38 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alP94iaRUgnqF9Oy@WindFlash> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ag2IDR-JWn8k3bUG@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 12:08:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:27:47PM -0300, Leonardo Bras a écrit :
> > Some places in the kernel implement a parallel programming strategy
> > consisting on local_locks() for most of the work, and some rare remote
> > operations are scheduled on target cpu. This keeps cache bouncing low since
> > cacheline tends to be mostly local, and avoids the cost of locks in non-RT
> > kernels, even though the very few remote operations will be expensive due
> > to scheduling overhead.
> >
> > On the other hand, for RT workloads this can represent a problem:
> > scheduling work on remote cpu that are executing low latency tasks
> > is undesired and can introduce unexpected deadline misses.
> >
> > It's interesting, though, that local_lock()s in RT kernels become
> > spinlock(). We can make use of those to avoid scheduling work on a remote
> > cpu by directly updating another cpu's per_cpu structure, while holding
> > it's spinlock().
> >
> > In order to do that, it's necessary to introduce a new set of functions to
> > make it possible to get another cpu's per-cpu "local" lock (pw_{un,}lock*)
> > and also do the corresponding queueing (pw_queue_on()) and flushing
> > (pw_flush()) helpers to run the remote work.
> >
> > Users of non-RT kernels but with low latency requirements can select
> > similar functionality by using the CONFIG_PWLOCKS compile time option.
> >
> > On CONFIG_PWLOCKS disabled kernels, no changes are expected, as every
> > one of the introduced helpers work the exactly same as the current
> > implementation:
> > pw_{un,}lock*() -> local_{un,}lock*() (ignores cpu parameter)
> > pw_queue_on() -> queue_work_on()
> > pw_flush() -> flush_work()
> >
> > For PWLOCKS enabled kernels, though, pw_{un,}lock*() will use the extra
> > cpu parameter to select the correct per-cpu structure to work on,
> > and acquire the spinlock for that cpu.
> >
> > pw_queue_on() will just call the requested function in the current
> > cpu, which will operate in another cpu's per-cpu object. Since the
> > local_locks() become spinlock()s in PWLOCKS enabled kernels, we are
> > safe doing that.
> >
> > pw_flush() then becomes a no-op since no work is actually scheduled on a
> > remote cpu.
> >
> > Some minimal code rework is needed in order to make this mechanism work:
> > The calls for local_{un,}lock*() on the functions that are currently
> > scheduled on remote cpus need to be replaced by either pw_{un,}lock_*(),
> > PWLOCKS enabled kernels they can reference a different cpu. It's also
> > necessary to use a pw_struct instead of a work_struct, but it just
> > contains a work struct and, in CONFIG_PWLOCKS, the target cpu.
> >
> > This should have almost no impact on non-CONFIG_PWLOCKS kernels: few
> > this_cpu_ptr() will become per_cpu_ptr(,smp_processor_id()) on non-hotpath
> > functions.
> >
> > On CONFIG_PWLOCKS kernels, this should avoid deadlines misses by
> > removing scheduling noise.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
>
> I like it! Just a few observations:
>
Hi Frederic, thanks for reviewing!
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PWLOCKS
> > +
> > +typedef local_lock_t pw_lock_t;
> > +typedef local_trylock_t pw_trylock_t;
> > +
> > +struct pw_struct {
> > + struct work_struct work;
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_init(lock) \
> > + local_lock_init(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_init(lock) \
> > + local_trylock_init(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock(lock, cpu) \
> > + local_lock(lock)
>
> For debugging purpose, it would be nice to ensure that in those off-case,
> cpu is indeed the local one. Basically all the non-local functions, those that
> take a cpu, should verify:
>
> lockdep_assert(cpu == smp_processor_id())
I see the point, should not be an issue, as non-local functions are not
hotpath.
>
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_local(lock) \
> > + local_lock(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_irqsave(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > + local_lock_irqsave(lock, flags)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_local_irqsave(lock, flags) \
> > + local_lock_irqsave(lock, flags)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock(lock, cpu) \
> > + local_trylock(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_local(lock) \
> > + local_trylock(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_irqsave(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > + local_trylock_irqsave(lock, flags)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock(lock, cpu) \
> > + local_unlock(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_local(lock) \
> > + local_unlock(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_local_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
> > + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lockdep_assert_held(lock) \
> > + lockdep_assert_held(lock)
> > +
> > +#define pw_queue_on(c, wq, pw) \
> > + queue_work_on(c, wq, &(pw)->work)
> > +
> > +#define pw_flush(pw) \
> > + flush_work(&(pw)->work)
> > +
> > +#define pw_get_cpu(pw) smp_processor_id()
> > +
> > +#define pw_is_cpu_remote(cpu) (false)
> > +
> > +#define INIT_PW(pw, func, c) \
> > + INIT_WORK(&(pw)->work, (func))
> > +
> > +#else /* CONFIG_PWLOCKS */
> > +
> > +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, pw_sl);
> > +
> > +typedef union {
> > + spinlock_t sl;
> > + local_lock_t ll;
> > +} pw_lock_t;
> > +
> > +typedef union {
> > + spinlock_t sl;
> > + local_trylock_t ll;
> > +} pw_trylock_t;
> > +
> > +struct pw_struct {
> > + struct work_struct work;
> > + int cpu;
> > +};
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> > +#define preempt_or_migrate_disable migrate_disable
> > +#define preempt_or_migrate_enable migrate_enable
> > +#else
> > +#define preempt_or_migrate_disable preempt_disable
> > +#define preempt_or_migrate_enable preempt_enable
>
> This can be no-op in !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT because non-rt spinlocks
> disable preemption already.
>
I remember this was useful because we were getting the per-cpu variable
before we preempt_disable in the lock code, and that could be bad if we get
preempted after getting the per-cpu variable, and migrated to another core.
This is supposed to cost very little, because it's planned to match
whatever is inside the lock, which would just be incrementing a nesting
counter.
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_init(lock) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_lock_init(lock.sl); \
> > + else \
> > + local_lock_init(lock.ll); \
> > +} while (0)
>
> It looks like all these macros could be inline functions.
>
I think the one with irqsave does not :(
So I ended up staying with defines all around.
Do you suggest replacing all except the irqsave ones with inline functions?
(I tried that, and the macro version looked easier to read. I have no issue
reusing the inline version again)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_init(lock) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_lock_init(lock.sl); \
> > + else \
> > + local_trylock_init(lock.ll); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock(lock, cpu)
> > \
>
> And those could have the same local CPU debug check.
>
Sure
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_lock(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu)); \
> > + else \
> > + local_lock(lock.ll); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_local(lock) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_disable(); \
> > + spin_lock(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl)); \
> > + } else { \
> > + local_lock(lock.ll); \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_irqsave(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu), flags); \
> > + else \
> > + local_lock_irqsave(lock.ll, flags); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lock_local_irqsave(lock, flags) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_disable(); \
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl), flags); \
> > + } else { \
> > + local_lock_irqsave(lock.ll, flags); \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock(lock, cpu) \
> > +({ \
> > + int t; \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + t = spin_trylock(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu)); \
> > + else \
> > + t = local_trylock(lock.ll); \
> > + t; \
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_local(lock) \
> > +({ \
> > + int t; \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_disable(); \
> > + t = spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl)); \
> > + if (!t) \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_enable();
> > \
>
> This is duplicating the RT logic in local_lock_internal.h and it would be
> tempting to propose spin_local_lock_t that both pw and RT local_lock could rely
> upon. But I'm afraid that would create a less readable result:
>
> - we would need to check the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT there before doing the
> migrate_disable/enable
>
> - RT local lock don't take the lock on IRQ/NMI, which is fine as pw is not
> expected to be used on the non-threaded parts of IRQs not NMIs. Still that's
> one more conditional to add there.
>
> - we'll need to differenciate local/remote operations.
>
> Well let's stick to what you did for now (Peter might have a different opinion though).
>
I get your point. I will take a look on that.
> > + } else { \
> > + t = local_trylock(lock.ll); \
> > + } \
> > + t; \
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define pw_trylock_irqsave(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > +({ \
> > + int t; \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + t = spin_trylock_irqsave(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu), flags); \
> > + else \
> > + t = local_trylock_irqsave(lock.ll, flags); \
> > + t; \
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock(lock, cpu) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_unlock(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu)); \
> > + else \
> > + local_unlock(lock.ll); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_local(lock) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + spin_unlock(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl)); \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_enable(); \
> > + } else { \
> > + local_unlock(lock.ll); \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags, cpu) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(per_cpu_ptr(lock.sl, cpu), flags); \
> > + else \
> > + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock.ll, flags); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_unlock_local_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl), flags); \
> > + preempt_or_migrate_enable(); \
> > + } else { \
> > + local_unlock_irqrestore(lock.ll, flags); \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_lockdep_assert_held(lock) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + lockdep_assert_held(this_cpu_ptr(lock.sl)); \
> > + else \
> > + lockdep_assert_held(this_cpu_ptr(lock.ll)); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_queue_on(c, wq, pw) \
> > +do { \
> > + int __c = c; \
> > + struct pw_struct *__pw = (pw); \
> > + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) { \
> > + WARN_ON((__c) != __pw->cpu); \
> > + __pw->work.func(&__pw->work); \
> > + } else { \
> > + queue_work_on(__c, wq, &(__pw)->work); \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Does nothing if PWLOCKS is set to use spinlock, as the task is already done at the
> > + * time pw_queue_on() returns.
> > + */
> > +#define pw_flush(pw) \
> > +do { \
> > + struct pw_struct *__pw = (pw); \
> > + if (!static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, &pw_sl)) \
> > + flush_work(&__pw->work); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define pw_get_cpu(w) container_of((w), struct pw_struct, work)->cpu
> > +
> > +#define pw_is_cpu_remote(cpu) ((cpu) != smp_processor_id())
> > +
> > +#define INIT_PW(pw, func, c) \
> > +do { \
> > + struct pw_struct *__pw = (pw); \
> > + INIT_WORK(&__pw->work, (func)); \
> > + __pw->cpu = (c); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_PWLOCKS */
> > +#endif /* LINUX_PWLOCKS_H */
> > diff --git a/kernel/pwlocks.c b/kernel/pwlocks.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..1ebf5cb979b9
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kernel/pwlocks.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include "linux/export.h"
> > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > +#include <linux/pwlocks.h>
> > +#include <linux/string.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
> > +
> > +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE(CONFIG_PWLOCKS_DEFAULT, pw_sl);
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pw_sl);
> > +
> > +static bool pwlocks_param_specified;
> > +
> > +static int __init pwlocks_setup(char *str)
> > +{
> > + int opt;
> > +
> > + if (!get_option(&str, &opt)) {
> > + pr_warn("PWLOCKS: invalid pwlocks parameter: %s, ignoring.\n", str);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (opt)
> > + static_branch_enable(&pw_sl);
> > + else
> > + static_branch_disable(&pw_sl);
> > +
> > + pwlocks_param_specified = true;
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> > +__setup("pwlocks=", pwlocks_setup);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Enable PWLOCKS if CPUs want to avoid kernel noise.
> > + */
> > +static int __init pwlocks_init(void)
> > +{
> > + if (pwlocks_param_specified)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE))
> > + static_branch_enable(&pw_sl);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(pwlocks_init);
>
> That should be a pre-SMP initcall. Otherwise you risk some asymetric calls.
>
Noted.
Will take a deeper look on that part for next version
Thanks!
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-12 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-19 1:27 [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce Per-CPU Work helpers (was QPW) Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 1:27 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] Introducing pw_lock() and per-cpu queue & flush work Leonardo Bras
2026-05-20 10:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-07-12 20:49 ` Leonardo Bras [this message]
2026-05-20 13:48 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-20 14:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-07-12 21:17 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-12 21:17 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-20 22:06 ` Randy Dunlap
2026-07-12 21:23 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-26 19:15 ` Jonathan Corbet
2026-07-12 21:32 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 1:27 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mm/swap: move bh draining into a separate workqueue Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 1:27 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] swap: apply new pw_queue_on() interface Leonardo Bras
2026-05-20 15:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-12 21:43 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-13 7:31 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-13 21:28 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 1:27 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] slub: " Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 10:21 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-20 14:53 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-12 22:35 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-13 7:36 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-13 10:55 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-07-13 21:44 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-13 21:40 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 6:58 ` [syzbot ci] Re: Introduce Per-CPU Work helpers (was QPW) syzbot ci
2026-05-20 13:09 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-12 20:32 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-13 8:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-13 21:17 ` Leonardo Bras
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=alP94iaRUgnqF9Oy@WindFlash \
--to=leobras.c@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=coxu@redhat.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=feng.tang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=lirongqing@baidu.com \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=youngjun.park@lge.com \
--cc=yuanchu@google.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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