Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] mm, swap: dynamic cluster management for xswap devices

[Baoquan He]

On 07/27/26 at 08:48am, Nhat Pham wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 6:50 AM Baoquan He <baoquan.he@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This series implements step 3 of the incremental path proposed in [1]:
> > a virtual swap device with dynamic cluster growth and shrink, backed
> > only by zswap, no writeback yet.
> >
> > During the discussion in [2], Chris and Nhat debated xarray-based vs
> > array-based cluster lookup for virtual swap.  Chris argued for keeping
> > the swap table and cluster_info in the same place with O(1) array
> > indexing, and suggested that the kvmalloc grow approach here should
> > provide the cluster management VS needs.  He further proposed using
> > the same grow technique for the future per-slot backend pointer array
> > (vs_table), keeping a single coherent array layout throughout.
> >
> > This series therefore serves as the foundation: once the dynamic
> > cluster management lands, Nhat's VS series can build the per-slot
> > backend pointer, writeback, and rmap on top of it — without an extra
> > xarray lookup in the cluster access path.
> 
> Thanks Baoquan. I've given it some more thoughts over the past week or
> so, to figure out a way to so that everyone would be happy with the
> final results.
> 
> To be perfectly clear, I'm not married with the xarray data structure.
> I only care about use case aspect (as you have seen, I switch over to
> swap table the moment I figure out a way to realize Kairui's design
> proposal - it's way cleaner) - and I've seen that you have addressed a
> lot of the design concerns I had that would hindered the use cases I
> presented. If the vmalloc data structure outperforms the xarray, it
> should *definitely* be the data structure we use when everything
> settles.
> 
> That just leaves the sequencing of our efforts :)
> 
> My only fear with landing one piece at a time is that that we land
> something that ended up not working for the entire big series in some
> unforeseen cases, and we have to rip it out or rewrite a huge chunks
> of it. Besides, without an actual use case, we can't really test its
> correctness, and purported performance improvement benefits.

Thanks for the thoughtful and honest reply, Nhat.  I really appreciate
the clarity — and the fact that this is a sequencing discussion, not a
technical objection.

Personally, I still lean toward the incremental approach.  The cluster
management layer feels like a well-defined, self-contained foundation
that can be reviewed and tested independently, and landing it first
would let the later change built on it with less effort.

I think the overall direction is converging nicely.  We've reached rough
consensus on the big-picture architecture — decoupling backends, writeback,
dynamic cluster grow/shrink, and per-device xswap/vswap — that's a solid
foundation.  Once we settle on the cluster_info implementation, everything
else should fall into place quickly. From there we can move on to actual
swap-tier usage of xswap/vswap and other extensions on top.

However, if the consensus leans toward merging your xarray-based vswap
series first and then switching the data structure as a follow-up
optimization, I have no problem with that either. One concern: if we
land the xarray-based approach first and then switch to a pointer array
later, the cluster_info type change (e.g to struct swap_cluster_info *
flat array or struct swap_cluster_info ** pointer array) will cause us
touching those codes twice. Just something to weigh against the
"land early" argument.

I'm quite optimistic about how things are shaping up.  It's been a long
discussion but I think we're very close to something that everyone can
get behind.

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> That's why so far I have bitten the bullet and sent out the whole
> series (even if it's really large) with the core use cases
> implemented. I understand that it is big, and is burdensome for
> reviewers - but at least you know that the core use cases works - and
> if you don't take my work for it, you can test with it and benchmark
> it, etc. And with Kairui's proposal, we still maintain the old
> machinery, which allows us to even merge with something a bit
> suboptimal, then optimize later. FWIW, so far in my testing, the
> numbers have been quite close, at least for zswap backend, and the
> core concern (memory overhead) has been resolved. So it might actually
> already be usable out of the box? :)
> 
> This patch series has reached 700 LoCs, and I still have some
> correctness concerns - I have commented one in another patch. It has
> gotten more complicated now, which is no fault of you - we just need
> more logic to handle the things xarray provided us out of the box,
> with the hope that it would be more optimal. And that's fine. I just
> think it would be better to land the xarray version first to unblock
> users, then just slot your patch series on top as a follow-up
> optimization. It would show the actual win of your data structure over
> xarray data structure with concrete numbers :) Win-win?
> 
> But thanks again for taking a stab at it. Seriously, you're awesome. I
> want to re-iterate again - this is NOT a Nacked-by Nhat. Not with this
> patch series, nor with the direction. I'm just trying to figure out
> the sequencing of our efforts that would make everything work. I'll
> spend sometimes on my own trying to synthesize this data structure
> with vswap design too, to see if I can fish out more gaps, and to see
> if I can clean things up in a way that would make the switch from
> xarray to this new data structure as painless as possible. As well as
> the other design points we have touched on in our last conversation -
> it makes sense to me at the time, but I need to code some prototype
> out and stare at it a bit more.