Re: Path forward for Virtualized Swap?

[Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 12:36:46PM +0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 09:15:17PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Thanks Kairui for very clear description of what you want and looking for.
> After reading your email, I think you want memsw support in v2. Currently you
> somehow are implementing memsw using memory.current and memory.swap.current.
> (I am assuming you need to subtract swapcache to avoid double counting.)
> To conclude, you want to use vswap (the aim is it to default) but you still want
> your way to implementing memsw keep working.
> 
> Please correct me if I missed something.
> 
> I am wondering if you really want memsw, why not propose memsw. Someone from
> tencent proposed memsw [1] previously, so why not continue that effort? I am
> pretty sure folks from Google (people who actually work on prodkernel there)
> will be happy to collaborate with you on that.

Hi Shakeel,

Right, I believe it is still being proposes as you can see there are some
previous progress, year that work need updated, let me try to do something
about it.

> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250319064148.774406-1-jingxiangzeng.cas@gmail.com/
> 
> Setting aside the memsw conversation, I think we should go back to the actual
> vswap conversation and list down what we agree on and where we still need
> discussion and decision. (I will take a stab at it and start a separate thread
> but still on this email and will use AI for the summary.)

Right, the things here is that I think it's not hard to see that
memory.current / memory.swap and memsw (if in V2) is tangled with each
other so I'm hope we won't create blocker for the future.