Re: [PATCH v10 0/6] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce swap tiers for cgroup based swap control
Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:11:45 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.cgroups,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 11:27:56AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > Hello Yosry, Shakeel, > > > > I have been working through this in detail at the implementation level. > > For now I am adding on/off control of zswap through the tier interface. > > > > > From zswap's perspective, we just need to skip zswap is zswap as a > > > tier is disallowed. Could just be a check in zswap_store() similar to > > > the check if zswap is enabled. I am assuming that if a swap tier is > > > disabled, nothing happens to the existing swapped out pages in this > > > tier, but new pages do not get swapped out to it. This is the same > > > behavior that happens if zswap is disabled at runtime. > > > > This part works as you described, with no real issues. > > > > > From the tiering perspective, we need to accept "zswap" as a possible > > > tier, or maybe creating it as a tier by default if zswap is configured > > > would be better to avoid handling the case where the user doesn't > > > create a tier for zswap. We also need to disallow zswap being the only > > > tier as that combination cannot work without vswap. > > > > I tried to forbid this at the implementation level as you suggested > > , and that is where I ran into trouble. > > A few code paths can end up with zswap as the only > > tier, and they are awkward to handle. Below is each case and what > > handling it would take: > > > > 1) A write turns off the last device tier while zswap stays on. > > -> rejected with -EINVAL. The write does not take effect. > > > > 2) The last device tier is removed via /sys/kernel/mm/swap/tiers. > > -> the file goes empty, so zswap is not shown either. > > > > 3) A cgroup has zswap and one device tier on, and that tier is removed. > > -> the cgroup's zswap entry is reset to 0, which the user never > > asked for. > > > > 4) A cgroup has zswap and device tiers on, and swapoff empties them. > > -> the cgroup's zswap entry is reset to 0. > > > > So the problem is that in (3) and (4), memory.swap.tiers.max has to > > change on its own independently of what the user wrote > > and it is not like just error handling situation as (1). > > > > There is also a consistency point. memory.swap.tiers.max already > > accepts a child enabling a tier that its parent has disabled: the write > > succeeds, no error is returned, and the difference is resolved > > internally. The user's setting is kept as written, and only the > > effective behavior is constrained. By that logic, accepting a > > zswap-only setting and guaranteeing only that it cannot do anything > > would fit how the interface already behaves. > > > > Having thought it over, I think one of these two directions would be > > better than enforcing the rule as above. > > > > 1. Allow zswap-only in memory.swap.tiers.max. As you say, it cannot > > work without vswap, so today the setting does nothing and there is > > nothing to prevent. Once vswap/xswap lands it becomes meaningful on its > > own, with no interface change needed. > > > > 2. Expose memory.swap.tiers.max.effective, like cpuset. We already > > track the user-set and the effective-set separately. Exposing > > the effective one would show that a zswap-only setting is not in > > effect, giving the user visibility instead of rewriting what they > > wrote. It would also help the parent-off/child-on case, where the > > child could see from the effective value that the tier is off. > > > > What do you think? or any other ideas? > > Hmm yes, seems like enforcing this rule comes with a lot of complexity > for little gain. It's possible today to enable zswap without adding > any swap devices, which would render zswap useless anyway. I suppose > in the same way, we can just do (1) and allow users to disallow all > tiers except zswap for a cgroup, which would effectively disable zswap > in the same way (albeit a bit less clear). We can document this > clearly in the memcg docs. > > Shakeel, any objections to this? Nopes, no objections.