Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce swap tiers for cgroup based swap control

YoungJun Park
2026-02-22T01:16:12Z

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 09:44:01AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chris Li wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > > >
> > > > I agree that using BPF would provide greater flexibility, allowing control not
> > > > just at the memcg level, but also per-process or for complex workloads.
> > > > (As like orchestrator and node controller)
> > >
> > > Yes it provides the flexibility but that is not the main reason I am pushing for
> > > it. The reason I want you to first try the BPF approach without introducing any
> > > stable interfaces. Show how swap tiers will be used and configured in production
> >
> > Is that your biggest concern?
>
> No, that is secondary because I am not seeing the real use-case of
> controlling/partitioning swap devices among sub-workloads. Until that is
> figured out, adding a stable API is not good.
>
> > Many different ways exist to solve that
> > problem. e.g. We can put a config option protecting it and mark it as
> > experimental. This will unblock the development allow experiment. We
> > can have more people to try it out and give feedback.
> >
> > > environment and then we can talk if a stable interface is needed. I am still not
> > > convinced that swap tiers need to be controlled hierarchically and the non-root
> > > should be able to control it.
> >
> > Yes, my company uses a different swap device at different cgroup
> > level. I did ask my coworker to confirm that usage. Control at the non
> > root level is a real need.
>
> I am assuming you meant Google and particularly Prodkernel team and not
> Android or ChromeOS. Google's prodkernel used to have per-cgroup
> swapfiles exposed through memory.swapfiles (if I remember correctly
> Suleiman implemented this along with ghost swapfiles). Later this was
> deprecated (by Yu Zhao) and global (ghost) swapfiles were being used.
> The memory.swapfiles interface instead of supporting real swapfiles
> started having select options among default, ghost/zswap and real
> (something like that). However such interface was used to just disable
> or enable zswap for a workload and never about hierarchically
> controlling the swap devices (Google prodkernel only have zswap). Has
> something changed?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > However, I am concerned that this level of freedom might introduce logical
> > > > contradictions, particularly regarding cgroup hierarchy semantics.
> > > >
> > > > For example, BPF might allow a topology that violates hierarchical constraints
> > > > (a concern that was also touched upon during LPC)
> > >
> > > Yes BPF provides more power but it is controlled by admin and admin can shoot
> > > their foot in multiple ways.
> >
> > I think this swap device control is a very basic need.
>
> Please explain that very basic need.
>
> > All your
> > objections to swapping control in the group can equally apply to
> > zswap.writeback. Unlike zswap.writeback, which only control from the
> > zswap behavior. This is a more generic version control swap device
> > other than zswap as well. BTW, I raised that concern about
> > zswap.writeback was not generic enough as swap control was limited
> > when zswap was proposed. We did hold back zswap.writeback. The
> > consensers is interface can be improved as later iterations. So here
> > we are.
>
> This just motivates me to pushback even harder on adding a new interface
> without a clear use-case.
>
....

After reading the reply and re-think more of it.

I have a few questions regarding the BPF-first approach you
suggested, if you don't mind. Some of them I am re-asking
because I feel they have not been clearly addressed yet.

- We are in an embedded environment where enabling additional
kernel compile options is costly. BPF is disabled by
default in some of our production configurations. From a
trade-off perspective, does it make sense to enable BPF
just for swap device control?

- You suggest starting with BPF and discussing a stable
interface later. I am genuinely curious, are there actual
precedents where a BPF prototype graduated into a stable
kernel interface?

- You raised that stable interfaces are hard to remove. Would
gating it behind a CONFIG option or marking it experimental
be an acceptable compromise?

- You already acknowledged the use-case for assigning
different swap devices to different workloads. Your
objection is specifically about hierarchical parent-child
partitioning. If the interface enforced uniform policy
within a subtree, would that be acceptable?

- We already run a modified kernel with internal swap control
in production and have real feedback from it. Requiring BPF
as a prerequisite to gather production experience seems
unnecessary when we are already doing that.

To be honest, I am having trouble understanding the motivation
behind the BPF-first validation approach. If the real point is
that BPF enables more flexible swap-out policies than any fixed
interface can, that would make much more sense to me. I would
appreciate it if you could share more on this.

Thanks,
Youngjun Park