Re: [PATCH v6] zswap: memcontrol: implement zswap writeback disabling

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 09:34:06AM -0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Hi Johannes,
> > >
> > > I haven't been following the thread closely, but I noticed the discussion
> > > about potential use cases for zram with memcg.
> > >
> > > One interesting idea I have is to implement a swap controller per cgroup.
> > > This would allow us to tailor the zram swap behavior to the specific needs of
> > > different groups.
> > >
> > > For example, Group A, which is sensitive to swap latency, could use zram swap
> > > with a fast compression setting, even if it sacrifices some compression ratio.
> > > This would prioritize quick access to swapped data, even if it takes up more space.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Group B, which can tolerate higher swap latency, could benefit
> > > from a slower compression setting that achieves a higher compression ratio.
> > > This would maximize memory efficiency at the cost of slightly slower data access.
> > >
> > > This approach could provide a more nuanced and flexible way to manage swap usage
> > > within different cgroups.
> >
> > That makes sense to me.
> >
> > It sounds to me like per-cgroup swapfiles would be the easiest
> > solution to this. Then you can create zram devices with different
> > configurations and assign them to individual cgroups.
> 
> Ideally you need zram then following swap file after the zram. That
> would be a list of the swap files rather than just one swapfile per
> cgroup.
>
> > This would also apply to Kairu's usecase: assign zrams and hdd backups
> > as needed on a per-cgroup basis.
> 
> Same there, Kairui's request involves ZRAM and at least one extra swap
> file. In other words, you really need a per cgroup swap file list.

Why is that a problem?

swapon(zram, cgroup=foo)
swapon(hdd, cgroup=foo)

> > In addition, it would naturally solve scalability and isolation
> > problems when multiple containers would otherwise be hammering on the
> > same swap backends and locks.
> >
> > It would also only require one, relatively simple new interface, such
> > as a cgroup parameter to swapon().
> >
> > That's highly preferable over a complex configuration file like
> > memory.swap.tiers that needs to solve all sorts of visibility and
> > namespace issues and duplicate the full configuration interface of
> > every backend in some new, custom syntax.
> 
> If you don't like the syntax of memory.swap.tiers, I am open to
> suggestions of your preferred syntax as well. The essicents of the
> swap.tiers is a per cgroup list of the swap back ends. The names imply
> that. I am not married to any given syntax of how to specify the list.
> Its goal matches the above requirement pretty well.

Except Minchan said that he would also like different zram parameters
depending on the cgroup.

There is no way we'll add a memory.swap.tiers with a new configuration
language for backend parameters.