Linux real-time development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-12 20:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ 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
2026-05-20 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
2026-07-14  9:47           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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
2026-07-14 10:12         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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