From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 6F78672603; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780513228; cv=none; b=qZAh8h3BTuNdY77Mw3kt7I11jBP35Ixxz48YRl2UtFOpWjYzfSkhLyyBPy73rFrwMBXww8+bF1iDJBghIAIrQyMmXFSbLMd0EuWswGAfnEStWMqYFM0A5lQ63e8FkvduC8G93VEIehKuUBBAjjM4kDlijdf6qERizvAV/MunzBg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780513228; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UoXJF4gpcHzZ2PNwYCKqHvbz0z/j1jaCt5hUjQjCPsM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qia+g5n2H1n4nmKLtPZgjbFiwClQyFAl+4gRs/vHTzGE9OFPwSKQUeGEX8sq6/hKI/VspZ5EGV9OwH8F6e3/bKKj8t9AUVMYiqraVT/qpCRxW8JFZT8VyBhra74wBEEs5sSSekhkaBgfrwhS4rWk73sxvJCJny0QCKdvqTOS6Pg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nraqdA1d; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nraqdA1d" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22CBC1F00893; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 19:00:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780513227; bh=5zbCaKse9V66SE5IfNpASYQVYOGSQeR/Rad19zWfoBA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=nraqdA1d0f2oiroPaK7Q5IGM8vdNnyflEpyhphrkbAArWnLZ5ZH5Pwg4UH+AZ3KK/ nG0e/TxEfVJq4BeAXswX8D0sBuBTHMBsUQPHlwLbvjGyZx06CtIyBjf9Kp8ZHX779d /r/mB51xzJ6sHWmIpysxNuL+fj8ggAhYGIncqYOz7M1NKx/0sCHJPi9KxcYkEA1dJM JaBBQrrd4PmwTA3UAFAdoVMcW1k4bPO/h4G9PyjPUOUTUGMqghDg+60goT0+DIS4Le DnW8d8T/Yc/KvsqmFuwQY2DdwmCx1w3ERg7mnvuo6EAuOC1KccSmvdQE2eLfIwyaTD FvjbTQFbS8H2w== Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 19:00:23 +0000 From: Yosry Ahmed To: Nhat Pham Cc: kasong@tencent.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, apopple@nvidia.com, axelrasmussen@google.com, baohua@kernel.org, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, bhe@redhat.com, byungchul@sk.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, chengming.zhou@linux.dev, chrisl@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, david@kernel.org, dev.jain@arm.com, gourry@gourry.net, hannes@cmpxchg.org, hughd@google.com, jannh@google.com, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, lance.yang@linux.dev, lenb@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, matthew.brost@intel.com, mhocko@suse.com, muchun.song@linux.dev, npache@redhat.com, pavel@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, pfalcato@suse.de, rafael@kernel.org, rakie.kim@sk.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, surenb@google.com, tglx@kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz, weixugc@google.com, ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, yosry.ahmed@linux.dev, yuanchu@google.com, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, ziy@nvidia.com, kernel-team@meta.com, riel@surriel.com, haowenchao22@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] mm, swap: Virtual Swap Space (Swap Table Edition) Message-ID: References: <20260528212955.1912856-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@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: > > > I don't like that the code bifurcates for vswap vs. normal swap entries > > > though. Not sure if this is an issue that can be fixed with proper > > > abstractions to hide it, or if the design needs modifications. I was > > > honestly really hoping we don't end up with this. I was hoping that the > > > physical swap device no longer uses a full swap table and all, and > > > everything goes through vswap. > > > > > > I hoping that if redirection isn't needed (e.g. zswap is disabled), > > > vswap can directly encode the physical swap slot so that the reverse > > > mapping isn't needed -- so we avoid the overhead without keeping the > > > physical swap device using a fully-fledged swap table. > > > > Can you expand on "vswap can directly encode the physical swap slot"? > > I'm not sure I follow here. > > > > > > > > All that being said, perhaps I am too out of touch with the code to > > > realize it's simply not possible. > > > > > > Honestly, if the main reason we can't have a single swap table for vswap > > > is saving 8 bytes on the reverse mapping, it sounds like a weak-ish > > > argument, even if we can't optimize the reverse mapping away. But maybe > > > I am also out of touch with RAM prices :) > > > > In terms of the space overhead I do agree, FWIW :) > > > > I think the other concern is the indirection overhead with going > > through the xarray for every swap operation, hence the per-CPU vswap > > cluster lookup caching idea: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260505153854.1612033-23-nphamcs@gmail.com/ > > > > > > > > I at least hope that, the current design is not painting us into a > > > corner (e.g. through userspace interfaces), and we can still achieve a > > > vswap-for-all implementation in the future (maybe that's what you have > > > in mind already?). > > > > That's still my plan. Operationally speaking, I want to make this > > completely transparent to users, with minimal to no performance > > overhead. > > I do want to add that, even without achieving this, the current design > already enables a lot of use cases. I think it is a good compromise to > maintain both virtual and directly mapped physical swap entries for > now, and revisit the conversation of whether we can afford a mandatory > vswap layer once all the optimizations have been done :) > > We should strive to simplify the codebase, and it will naturally > happen when the original overhead concern is no longer there. A > swap-related example: a few years ago, everyone thought swap slot > cache was needed. But then, Kairui optimized the swap allocator's lock > contention issue away, and that swap slot cache is suddenly redundant. > That finally allowed us to get rid of it. Similar thing happened (or > is happening?) with the SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO swapcache-skipping > heuristics. I agree, I just want to make sure we have a line of sight (or at least no blockers) to having a unified vswap layer in the future.