On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 05:25:15PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM David Kaufmann <astra(a)ionic.at> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 05:36:15PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > To me this sounds like too much dependency on swap.
> >
> > That's not what I meant, I wanted to emphasize the different values of
> > disk storage vs. RAM. As said in another email it doesn't matter at all
> > if there is 0% or 90% of disk swap usage, while RAM usage can be quite
> > essential. (This is in case swapped out stuff stays swapped out.)
>
> Inactive pages that are evicted long term, is a workload that I think
> would benefit from zswap instead. In that case you get the benefit of
> the memory cache for recently used anonymous pages that would
> otherwise result in "swap thrashing" and the "least recently
used"
> pages are moved to disk based swap.
Is this how it works? Previously it was stated that once a page is
swapped to a particular swap device, that's it. It would be nice if a
page which has been sitting in zram for a while could be swapped out
to the slower / cheaper / larger disk.
It seems possible:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/blockdev/zram.html#wri...
--
Tomasz Torcz “God, root, what's the difference?”
tomek(a)pipebreaker.pl “God is more forgiving.”