From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-182.mta0.migadu.com (out-182.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B68383E717D for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2026 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780948238; cv=none; b=SGDZtEy6mKsODxcLsxpgu1TR+ky/7h0KMk1y54TsdHHzrzmybS2V5VNIX/VNDywT3cL0mQ9AdavJJNNabQR/VgA3uMN4pPnz3u/z+K3dJvS3aMQ3gnPP/lXMjq6Dq+57UZG+Z/mRyXJs9vm6MWGkV46Kw54G6UCeUvcWlpYq/ko= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780948238; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QbpVzfVc4z1sGneEviDuKx+1h4GgvHHeeDGNVEAHAfc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NiMODl6EHri5zlfu7TdXWT4JyHa6tmGcSTJSWZb2/oG7NNSyhTIYVowjUdVuY1ockuQOY0LGdK35xnIDrU/7G2DKheZfwW7XwZ4h5Jcx6SgaZEYQDYAdnfg7k9+/r3ntt8U4ta9OFgA7AT4Kc8Eo3Li/3RCmAYieeGcoKqxoXBc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=c2/gonYM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="c2/gonYM" Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 12:50:18 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1780948224; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gpMcdQqQNsSXJkHf7o33LPCAH/sDumLYvx0osSZwQns=; b=c2/gonYMrRlOyUbx6j7slsmXtXB/NhjBZq7g94qgLh/kp1ZYqDCE+V3jnmCSdBXVF9PVPq jsm3Fnnh3v1Xi6aHkZM9o1sgYR2Thfk/7YUjCIPUFQBqZDQ3YQ8qjkvXsR/Lend79SC2X3 tHEq9iEQPu6KM9KQ7LjZiPKoUudHkUk= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Shakeel Butt To: Yosry Ahmed Cc: Hao Jia , Johannes Weiner , mhocko@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, mkoutny@suse.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, Nhat Pham , akpm@linux-foundation.org, chengming.zhou@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Hao Jia , youngjun.park@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/zswap: Implement proactive writeback Message-ID: References: <20260526114601.67041-1-jiahao.kernel@gmail.com> <20260526114601.67041-3-jiahao.kernel@gmail.com> <6deeaea7-3cd1-4403-29fc-d2dc55c297f8@gmail.com> <6db27a22-cc7a-9a94-db3f-c912fd39aa32@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT +Youngjun On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 11:30:30AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 10:36:07PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > >> But doesn't it make more sense to specify the compressed size, which is > > > >> ultimately the amount of memory you actually want to reclaim. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I personally prefer compressed size to pre-compressed size. That's > > > > kinda what user cares about, no? > > > > > > > > One thing we can do is let users prescribe a compressed size, but > > > > internally, we can multiply that by the average compression ratio. > > > > That gives us a guesstimate of how many pages we need to reclaim, and > > > > you can follow the rest of your implementation as is (perhaps with > > > > short-circuit when we reach the goal with fewer pages reclaimed). > > > > > > Got it. I will change it to use the compressed size in the next version. > > > > > > Yosry, Nhat, should we continue using the zswap_writeback_only key to > > > trigger proactive writeback? > > > > I *really* want the memcg maintainers to chime in here, it's > > ultimately their call. > > > > Michal? Johannes? Shakeel? Roman? Anyone? :D > > Between the options of having an explicit interface (i.e. > memory.zswap.writeback*) or a key (i.e. zswap_writeback_only) to memory.reclaim > interface, I prefer the key option. I have not looked into how much proactively > reclaiming zswap memory or proactively triggering zswap writeback makes sense > but from the perspective of memcg interface, I think the key option would give a > more clean solution if we decide in the future that this whole thing was a bad > idea. > > Next regarding future proofing zswap writeback trigger, do we expect any > potential additions/changes/new-features for this interface? For example do we > expect in future we may want to trigger the zswap writeback only from a specific > node or lowest memory tier? Youngjun is working on swap tiers. At the moment he is more interested in allowing a specific swap device to a memcg or not. I can imagine in future there will be use-cases where there will be a need to demote data on higher tier swap to lower tier swap. What would be the appropriate interface? BTW does zswap folks think of zswap as a top swap tier or something different?