Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] mm: support zswap-backed anonymous large folio swapin

[Fujunjie <fujunjie1@qq.com>]

On 5/12/2026 6:13 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>> Feedback would be especially helpful on:
>>
>> 1. whether it makes sense to support all-zswap large folio swapin first,
>>    while keeping mixed zswap/disk ranges on the order-0 fallback path
> 
> I think so, yes, but based on my read of the code this RFC only affects
> synchornous swapin, which is more-or-less zram+zswap. This is an
> uncommon setup outside of testing.
> 
>> 2. whether a follow-up for mixed zswap/disk large folio swapin would be
>>    useful after this RFC
> 
> That's a heavier lift and I think we should consider this in the
> longer-term, once the virtual swap work settles down. This is
> conceptually not a zswap thing, you can have parts of a folio on disk,
> in zswap, in the zeromap, etc. So it needs to be handled at a higher
> layer (virtual swap for example).
>
Thanks Yosry.

That makes sense. I agree that the mixed zswap/disk/zeromap case is not
really zswap-specific and should be handled at a higher layer, likely
after the virtual swap work settles.

Given the feedback on the swapin path structure and Alexandre's ongoing
work in this area, I will pause this RFC in its current form and follow
those series first.

Thanks