Re: Path forward for Virtualized Swap?

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 2026-09-20 at 23:43 -1000, Chris Li wrote:
> 
> I am sorry, that is not actual user usage. You need to start from an
> actual usage case: I have a workload X, only want to give limit Y for
> the cgroup jobs but with Z SLO requirement. That kind of actual usage
> requirement.

Limiting how much anonymous memory can be zswapped
does not guarantee an SLO, though.

We have seen plenty of examples in practice of
workloads that have swap DISABLED, and are still
thrashing, because part of the working set of
that program is in the page cache, and that still
gets evicted.

The way you can guarantee the workload is not
thrashing is to limit the total (anon + file
cache) address space of the program to within
some size.

Anything else is not a guarantee.

What is it you are actually asking for?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.