In https://bugs.debian.org/970639 the request was made to enable ZSWAP.
Upon it was (rightly) noted that zswap.rst contained this:
> Zswap is a new feature as of v3.11 and interacts heavily with memory
> reclaim. This interaction has not been fully explored on the large set
> of potential configurations and workloads that exist. For this reason,
> zswap is a work in progress and should be considered experimental.
Furthermore the mm/Kconfig contains this on the ZSWAP option:
> Compressed cache for swap pages (EXPERIMENTAL)
But the contents of that zswap.rst hasn't changed since the initial commit
61b0d76017a50c263c303fa263b295b04e0c68f6 from 2013-07-11.
Similarly, that line in Kconfig hasn't changed either since the initial commit
2b2811178e85553405b86e3fe78357b9b95889ce from 2013-07-11.
Should ZSWAP should still be considered experimental or not?
Regards,
Diederik
On Tue, 31 May 2022 10:41:05 +0200 Diederik de Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> In https://bugs.debian.org/970639 the request was made to enable ZSWAP.
>
> Upon it was (rightly) noted that zswap.rst contained this:
> > Zswap is a new feature as of v3.11 and interacts heavily with memory
> > reclaim. This interaction has not been fully explored on the large set
> > of potential configurations and workloads that exist. For this reason,
> > zswap is a work in progress and should be considered experimental.
>
> Furthermore the mm/Kconfig contains this on the ZSWAP option:
> > Compressed cache for swap pages (EXPERIMENTAL)
>
> But the contents of that zswap.rst hasn't changed since the initial commit
> 61b0d76017a50c263c303fa263b295b04e0c68f6 from 2013-07-11.
>
> Similarly, that line in Kconfig hasn't changed either since the initial commit
> 2b2811178e85553405b86e3fe78357b9b95889ce from 2013-07-11.
>
> Should ZSWAP should still be considered experimental or not?
I'd say "not".