Message-ID: <aLJ4fEWo7V9Xsz15@yjaykim-PowerEdge-T330>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:05:16 +0900
From: YoungJun Park <youngjun.park@....com>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
	roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
	muchun.song@...ux.dev, shikemeng@...weicloud.com,
	kasong@...cent.com, nphamcs@...il.com, bhe@...hat.com,
	baohua@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gunho.lee@....com,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, taejoon.song@....com,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce infrastructure for
 cgroup-based swap priority

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the detailed feedback, and sorry for the late reply.

> I think you touch on a very important question that might trigger a
> big design change. Do we want to have a per tier swap.max? It will
> specify not only whether this cgroup will enroll into this tier or
> not. It also controls how much swap it allows to do in this cgroup.
> The swap.max will follow the straight contain relationship. I would
> need to think more about the relationship between swap.max and
> swap.tiers. Initial intuition is that, we might end up with both per
> tier swap.max, which control resource limit, it has subset contain
> relationship. At the same time the swap.tiers which control QoS, it
> does not follow the subset contained.
>
> Need more sleep on that.

When I first ideated on this, I also considered per-device max values,
with 0 meaning exclusion, to implement cases like a cgroup using only
network swap. At that time the idea was to give each device its own
counter, so setting it to 0 would imply exclusion. But this approach
would effectively require maintaining per-device page counters similar
to the existing swap.max implementation, and the relationship between
these per-device counters and the global swap.max would need to be
carefully defined. That made the design significantly heavier than the
functionality I was aiming for, so I decided to drop it. I read your
point more as a QoS extension, and I see it as complementary rather
than a counter argument.

> First of all, sorry about the pedantic, it should be "swap.tiers" just
> to be consistent with the rest of the discussion.
> Secondly, I just view names as an alias of the number. 1-3 is hard to
> read what you want.
> If we allow name as the alias, we can also do:
> echo zram-hdd > memory.swap.tieres
>
> It is exactly the same thing but much more readable.
>
> >    cg1/cg2: 2-4,6  > memory.swap.tie (ssd,hdd,network device, somedevice 2, assuming non-subset is allowed)
>
> echo ssd-network_device,some_device2 > memory.swap.tiers
>
> See, same thing but much more readable what is your intention.
>
> BTW, we should disallow space in tier names.

Ack—those spaces were only in my example; the implementation will reject
spaces in tier names.

I like the interface format you proposed, and I’ll move forward with an
initial implementation using the name-based tier approach, dropping
the numeric format.

> We do want to think about swap.tiers vs per tier swap.max. One idea
> just brainstorming is that we can have an array of
> "swap.<tiername>.max".
> It is likely we need to have both kinds of interface. Because
> "swap.<tiername>.max" specifies the inclusive child limit.
> "swap.tiers" specifies this C group swap usage QoS. I might not use
> hdd in this cgroup A, but the child cgroup B does. So A's hdd max
> can't be zero.
>
> The other idea is to specify a percentage for each tier of the
> swap.max in "swap.tiers.max": zram:30  sdd:70
> That means zram max is "swap.max * 30%"   and ssd max is "swap.max *
> 70%". The number does not need to add up to 100, but can't be bigger
> than 100.
> The sum can be bigger than 100.
>
> Need more sleep on it.

I don’t have additional ideas beyond what you suggested at now. Since swap.max
is defined in terms of quantity, my intuition is that tier.max should
probably also be quantity-based, not percentage. As I mentioned earlier,
I had also considered per-device max in the early RFC stage. The design
was to introduce per-device counters, but that added substantial overhead
and complexity, especially in reconciling them with the global swap.max
semantics. For that reason I abandoned the idea, though I agree your
suggestion makes sense in the context of QoS extension.

At this point I feel the main directions are aligned, so I’ll proceed
with an initial patch version. My current summary is:

1. Global interface to group swap priority ranges into tiers by name
   (/sys/kernel/mm/swap/swaptier).
2. Slow path allocation uses bitmask skipping; fast path uses per-cpu
   tier cluster caches.
3. Cgroup interface format modeled after cpuset.
4. No inheritance between parent and child cgroup as a perspective of QoS
5. Runtime modification of tier settings allowed.
6. Keep extensibility and broader use cases in mind.

And some open points for further thought:

1. NUMA autobind
   - Forbid tier if NUMA priorities exist, and vice versa?
   - Should we create a dedicated NUMA tier?
   - Other options?
2. swap.tier.max
   - percentage vs quantity, and clear use cases.
  -  sketch concrete real-world scenarios to clarify usage 
3. Possible future extensions to VMA-based tier usage.
4. Arbitrary ordering
   - Do we really need it?
   - If so, maybe provide a separate cgroup interface to reorder tiers.

Best Regards
Youngjun Park

Powered by blists - more mailing lists