On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:59:31AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > I don't have a problem with this approach, it is not really clean as > > > we still treat zswap as a swapfile and have to deal with a lot of > > > unnecessary code like swap slots handling and whatnot. > > > > These are existing code? Yes. The ghost swap file are existing code used in Google for many years. > I was referring to the fact that today with zswap being tied to > swapfiles we do some necessary work such as searching for swap slots > during swapout. The initial swap_desc approach aimed to avoid that. > With this minimal ghost swapfile approach we retain this unfavorable > behavior. Can you explain how you can avoid the free swap entry search in the swap descriptor world? The swap entry space is smaller than the memory address space and there are other swapfiles can use the swap entry. You do need to do some swap entry space management work to get a free entry. That to me seems unavoidable, am I missing something? > > Personally, I have no problem to change the design of swap code to add > > useful features. Just want to check whether we can do that step by step > > and show benefit and cost clearly in each step. > > Right. I understand and totally agree, even from a development point > of view it's much better to make big changes incrementally to avoid > doing a lot of work that ends up going nowhere. I am just trying to > make sure that whatever we decide is indeed a step in the right > direction. The ghost swap file patch already exists. We might just share it here for the discussion purpose, list the pros and cons. Chris
