Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/zswap: Implement proactive writeback

[Yosry Ahmed]

> > Is the main difference that we are scanning in batches here? I think we
> > can have shrink_memcg() do that too. If anything, it might make the
> > shrinker more efficient. Over-reclaim is ofc a concern, and especially
> > in the zswap_store() path as the overhead can be noticeable. Maybe we
> > can parameterize the batch size based on the code path.
> > 
> > Nhat, what do you think?
> 
> Nhat, since we now have the referenced-based second chance algorithm, should
> we consider doing batch writeback for shrink_memcg() as well?
> 
> Of course, we could pass a parameter to control whether batch writeback is
> needed, so as to preserve the original behavior of shrink_memcg().

Yeah probably best to parameterize the batch size and keep the current
behavior of the shrinker for this series. We can play with using batches
for the shrinker later.

> 
> Thanks,
> Hao