I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
should not be seeing this issue?
I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
folks have already thought about:
1) The size of a swap device is statically computed when the swap device
is turned on (nr_swap_pages). The size of zram swap device is dynamic
since we are compressing the pages and thus the swap subsystem thinks
that the zram swap device is full when it is not really full. Any
plans/thoughts about the possibility of being able to update the size
and/or the # of available pages in a swap device on the fly?
2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
= 0) since the handle returned from zsmalloc is encoded as (<PFN>,
<obj_idx>) and thus the resulting handle will be 0 (since obj_idx starts
at 0). zs_malloc returns the handle but does not distinguish between a
valid handle of 0 and a failure to allocate. A possible solution to this
would be to start the obj_idx at 1. Is this feasible?
Thanks,
Olav Haugan
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
(sorry about the HTML in the previous message)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
> should not be seeing this issue?
What do you want the system to do at this point? OOM kill? Also, if
you are that low on memory, how are you preventing thrashing on the
code pages?
I am asking because we also use zram but haven't run into this
problem---however we had to deal with other problems that motivate
these questions.
>
> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
> folks have already thought about:
>
> 1) The size of a swap device is statically computed when the swap device
> is turned on (nr_swap_pages). The size of zram swap device is dynamic
> since we are compressing the pages and thus the swap subsystem thinks
> that the zram swap device is full when it is not really full. Any
> plans/thoughts about the possibility of being able to update the size
> and/or the # of available pages in a swap device on the fly?
That is a known limitation of zram. If you can predict your
compression ratio and your working set size, it's not a big problem:
allocate a swap device which, based on the expected compression ratio,
will use up RAM until what's left is just enough for the working set.
> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
> = 0) since the handle returned from zsmalloc is encoded as (<PFN>,
> <obj_idx>) and thus the resulting handle will be 0 (since obj_idx starts
> at 0). zs_malloc returns the handle but does not distinguish between a
> valid handle of 0 and a failure to allocate. A possible solution to this
> would be to start the obj_idx at 1. Is this feasible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olav Haugan
>
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
> should not be seeing this issue?
>
The same question as Luigi "What do you want the system to do at this
point?"
If swap fails then OOM killer will be triggered, I don't think this will
be a issue.
By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
real swap device if compressed pool is full.
> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
> folks have already thought about:
>
> 1) The size of a swap device is statically computed when the swap device
> is turned on (nr_swap_pages). The size of zram swap device is dynamic
> since we are compressing the pages and thus the swap subsystem thinks
> that the zram swap device is full when it is not really full. Any
> plans/thoughts about the possibility of being able to update the size
> and/or the # of available pages in a swap device on the fly?
>
> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
AFAIK, this will never happen.
> = 0) since the handle returned from zsmalloc is encoded as (<PFN>,
> <obj_idx>) and thus the resulting handle will be 0 (since obj_idx starts
> at 0). zs_malloc returns the handle but does not distinguish between a
> valid handle of 0 and a failure to allocate. A possible solution to this
> would be to start the obj_idx at 1. Is this feasible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olav Haugan
>
--
Regards,
-Bob
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
> should not be seeing this issue?
I agree with Luigi and Bob.
zram's size is based on how many free memory you expect to use for zram.
In my test, the compression ratio is about 1:4, of course the working
sets may be
different with yours.
Further more, may be you can modify vm_swap_full() to let kernel free swap_entry
aggressively.
> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
> folks have already thought about:
>
> 1) The size of a swap device is statically computed when the swap device
> is turned on (nr_swap_pages). The size of zram swap device is dynamic
> since we are compressing the pages and thus the swap subsystem thinks
> that the zram swap device is full when it is not really full. Any
> plans/thoughts about the possibility of being able to update the size
> and/or the # of available pages in a swap device on the fly?
>
> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
> = 0) since the handle returned from zsmalloc is encoded as (<PFN>,
> <obj_idx>) and thus the resulting handle will be 0 (since obj_idx starts
> at 0). zs_malloc returns the handle but does not distinguish between a
> valid handle of 0 and a failure to allocate. A possible solution to this
> would be to start the obj_idx at 1. Is this feasible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olav Haugan
>
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi Bob, Luigi,
On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>
> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
>> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
>> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
>> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
>> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
>> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
>> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
>> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
>> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
>> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
>> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
>> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
>> should not be seeing this issue?
>>
>
> The same question as Luigi "What do you want the system to do at this
> point?"
>
> If swap fails then OOM killer will be triggered, I don't think this will
> be a issue.
I definitely don't want OOM killer to run since OOM killer can kill
critical processes (this is on Android so we have Android LMK to handle
the killing in a more "safe" way). However, what I am seeing is that
when I run low on memory zram fails to swap out and returns error but
the swap subsystem just continues to try to swap out even when this
error occurs (it tries over and over again very rapidly causing the
kernel to be filled with error messages [at least two error messages per
failure btw]).
What I expected to happen is for the swap subsystem to stop trying to
swap out until memory is available to swap out. I guess this could be
handled several ways. Either 1) the swap subsystem, upon encountering an
error to swap out, backs off from trying to swap out for some time or 2)
zram informs the swap subsystem that the swap device is full.
Could this be handled by congestion control? However, I found the
following comment in the code in vmscan.c:
* If the page is swapcache, write it back even if that would
* block, for some throttling. This happens by accident, because
* swap_backing_dev_info is bust: it doesn't reflect the
* congestion state of the swapdevs. Easy to fix, if needed.
However, how would one update the congested state of zram when it
becomes un-congested?
> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
backing storage.
>> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
>> folks have already thought about:
>>
>> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
>
> AFAIK, this will never happen.
I can easily get this to happen since I have memory starting at physical
address 0.
Thanks,
Olav Haugan
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bob, Luigi,
>
> On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
>>> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
>>> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
>>> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
>>> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
>>> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
>>> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
>>> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
>>> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
>>> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
>>> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
>>> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
>>> should not be seeing this issue?
>>>
>>
>> The same question as Luigi "What do you want the system to do at this
>> point?"
>>
>> If swap fails then OOM killer will be triggered, I don't think this will
>> be a issue.
>
> I definitely don't want OOM killer to run since OOM killer can kill
> critical processes (this is on Android so we have Android LMK to handle
> the killing in a more "safe" way). However, what I am seeing is that
> when I run low on memory zram fails to swap out and returns error but
> the swap subsystem just continues to try to swap out even when this
> error occurs (it tries over and over again very rapidly causing the
> kernel to be filled with error messages [at least two error messages per
> failure btw]).
>
> What I expected to happen is for the swap subsystem to stop trying to
> swap out until memory is available to swap out. I guess this could be
> handled several ways. Either 1) the swap subsystem, upon encountering an
> error to swap out, backs off from trying to swap out for some time or 2)
> zram informs the swap subsystem that the swap device is full.
There is a lot I don't know, both about the specifics of your case and
the MM subsystem in general, so I'll make some guesses. Don't trust
anything I say here (as if you would anyway :-).
As the system gets low on memory, the MM tries to reclaim it in
various ways. The biggest (I think) sources of reclaim come from
swapping out anonymous pages (process data), and discarding
file-backed pages (code, for instance). The "swappiness" parameter
decides how much attention to give to each of these types of memory.
It's possible that you get in a situation in which attempts to swap
out anonymous pages with zram fail because you're out of memory at
that point, but then some memory is reclaimed by discarding file
pages, and that's why you don't see OOM kills or kernel panic. Either
way you should be really close to that moment, unless something funny
is going on.
You could try to snapshot the memory usage when those message are
produced. You can, for instance, use SysRQ-M to dump a bunch of data
in the syslog. You may also want to monitor the zram device
utlization from the sysfs.
It's possible that by the time you see those messages you're already
thrashing badly and that things slowed down so much that you aren't
quite getting to the OOM killer. You could try to reduce the size of
your swap device, and/or change the swappiness.
By the way, I am under the impression that Android uses the OOM killer
as part of their memory management strategy.
> Could this be handled by congestion control? However, I found the
> following comment in the code in vmscan.c:
>
> * If the page is swapcache, write it back even if that would
> * block, for some throttling. This happens by accident, because
> * swap_backing_dev_info is bust: it doesn't reflect the
> * congestion state of the swapdevs. Easy to fix, if needed.
>
> However, how would one update the congested state of zram when it
> becomes un-congested?
>
>> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
>> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
>
> zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
> backing storage.
Zswap can be configured to run without a backing storage.
>
>>> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
>>> folks have already thought about:
>>>
>>> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
>>
>> AFAIK, this will never happen.
>
> I can easily get this to happen since I have memory starting at physical
> address 0.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olav Haugan
>
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
On 10/25/2013 08:35 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
> Hi Bob, Luigi,
>
> On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
>>> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
>>> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
>>> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
>>> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
>>> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
>>> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
>>> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
>>> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
>>> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
>>> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
>>> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
>>> should not be seeing this issue?
>>>
>>
>> The same question as Luigi "What do you want the system to do at this
>> point?"
>>
>> If swap fails then OOM killer will be triggered, I don't think this will
>> be a issue.
>
> I definitely don't want OOM killer to run since OOM killer can kill
> critical processes (this is on Android so we have Android LMK to handle
> the killing in a more "safe" way). However, what I am seeing is that
> when I run low on memory zram fails to swap out and returns error but
> the swap subsystem just continues to try to swap out even when this
> error occurs (it tries over and over again very rapidly causing the
> kernel to be filled with error messages [at least two error messages per
> failure btw]).
>
A simple way to disable the error messages is delete the printk line in
zram source code.
> What I expected to happen is for the swap subsystem to stop trying to
> swap out until memory is available to swap out. I guess this could be
In my opinion, the system already entered heavy memory pressure state
when zram fails to allocate a page.
In this case, the OOM killer or Low Memory Killer should be waked up and
kill some processes in order to free some memory pages.
After this happen, the system free memory may above water mark and no
swap will happen. Even swap happens again, it's unlikely that zram will
fail to alloc page. If it fails again, OOM killer or LMK should be
triggered once more.
> handled several ways. Either 1) the swap subsystem, upon encountering an
> error to swap out, backs off from trying to swap out for some time or 2)
> zram informs the swap subsystem that the swap device is full.
>
> Could this be handled by congestion control? However, I found the
> following comment in the code in vmscan.c:
>
> * If the page is swapcache, write it back even if that would
> * block, for some throttling. This happens by accident, because
> * swap_backing_dev_info is bust: it doesn't reflect the
> * congestion state of the swapdevs. Easy to fix, if needed.
>
> However, how would one update the congested state of zram when it
> becomes un-congested?
>
>> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
>> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
>
> zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
> backing storage.
>
Yes, that's still a problem of zswap. Perhaps you can create a swap file
on the backing storage.
I'll try to add a fake swap device for zswap, so that users can have one
more choice besides zram.
>>> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
>>> folks have already thought about:
>>>
>>> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
>>
>> AFAIK, this will never happen.
>
> I can easily get this to happen since I have memory starting at physical
> address 0.
>
Could you confirm this? AFAIR, physical memory start from 0 usually
reserved for some special usage.
I used 'cat /proc/zoneinfo' on x86 and arm, neither of the 'start_pfn'
was 0.
--
Regards,
-Bob
Hello,
I had no enough time to think over your great questions since I should enjoy
in Edinburgh so if I miss something, Sorry!
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:51:34PM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
> I am trying to use zram in very low memory conditions and I am having
> some issues. zram is in the reclaim path. So if the system is very low
> on memory the system is trying to reclaim pages by swapping out (in this
> case to zram). However, since we are very low on memory zram fails to
> get a page from zsmalloc and thus zram fails to store the page. We get
> into a cycle where the system is low on memory so it tries to swap out
> to get more memory but swap out fails because there is not enough memory
> in the system! The major problem I am seeing is that there does not seem
> to be a way for zram to tell the upper layers to stop swapping out
True. The zram is block device so at a moment, I don't want to make zram
swap-specific if it's possible.
> because the swap device is essentially "full" (since there is no more
> memory available for zram pages). Has anyone thought about this issue
> already and have ideas how to solve this or am I missing something and I
> should not be seeing this issue?
It's true. We might need feedback loop and it shoudn't be specific for
zram-swap. One think I can imagine is that we could move failed victim
pages into LRU active list when the swapout failed so VM will have more
weight for file pages than anon ones. For detail, you could see
AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE and get_scan_count for detail.
The problem is it's on fs layer while zram is on block layer so what I
can think at a moment is follwing as
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 8ed1b77..c80b0b4 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -502,6 +502,8 @@ static pageout_t pageout(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping,
if (!PageWriteback(page)) {
/* synchronous write or broken a_ops? */
ClearPageReclaim(page);
+ if (PageError(page))
+ return PAGE_ACTIVATE;
}
trace_mm_vmscan_writepage(page, trace_reclaim_flags(page));
inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_VMSCAN_WRITE);
It doesn't prevent swapout at all but it should throttle pick up anonymous
pages for reclaiming so file-backed pages will be preferred by VM so sometime,
zsmalloc succeed to allocate a free page and swapout will resume again.
>
> I am also seeing a couple other issues that I was wondering whether
> folks have already thought about:
>
> 1) The size of a swap device is statically computed when the swap device
> is turned on (nr_swap_pages). The size of zram swap device is dynamic
> since we are compressing the pages and thus the swap subsystem thinks
> that the zram swap device is full when it is not really full. Any
> plans/thoughts about the possibility of being able to update the size
> and/or the # of available pages in a swap device on the fly?
It's really good question. We could make zram's size bigger to prevent
such problem when you set zram's disksize from the beginning but in this case,
zram's meta(ie, struct table) size will be increased a bit. Is such memory
overhead is critical for you?
>
> 2) zsmalloc fails when the page allocated is at physical address 0 (pfn
> = 0) since the handle returned from zsmalloc is encoded as (<PFN>,
> <obj_idx>) and thus the resulting handle will be 0 (since obj_idx starts
> at 0). zs_malloc returns the handle but does not distinguish between a
> valid handle of 0 and a failure to allocate. A possible solution to this
> would be to start the obj_idx at 1. Is this feasible?
I think it's doable.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olav Haugan
>
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
Hi Luigi,
On 10/24/2013 6:12 PM, Luigi Semenzato wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Bob, Luigi,
>>
>> On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
>>> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
>>
>> zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
>> backing storage.
>
> Zswap can be configured to run without a backing storage.
>
I was under the impression that zswap requires a backing storage. Can
you elaborate on how to configure zswap to not need a backing storage?
Olav Haugan
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
[apologies for the previous HTML email]
Hi Olav,
I haven't personally done it. Seth outlines the configuration in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/105378/focus=105543
Stephen, can you add more detail from your experience?
Thanks!
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Luigi,
>
> On 10/24/2013 6:12 PM, Luigi Semenzato wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Bob, Luigi,
>>>
>>> On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
>>>> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
>>>
>>> zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
>>> backing storage.
>>
>> Zswap can be configured to run without a backing storage.
>>
>
> I was under the impression that zswap requires a backing storage. Can
> you elaborate on how to configure zswap to not need a backing storage?
>
>
> Olav Haugan
>
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
Hi Olav,
On 11/01/2013 07:34 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
> Hi Luigi,
>
> On 10/24/2013 6:12 PM, Luigi Semenzato wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Olav Haugan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Bob, Luigi,
>>>
>>> On 10/23/2013 5:55 PM, Bob Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/24/2013 05:51 AM, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, could you take a try with zswap? Which can write pages to
>>>> real swap device if compressed pool is full.
>>>
>>> zswap might not be feasible in all cases if you only have flash as
>>> backing storage.
>>
>> Zswap can be configured to run without a backing storage.
>>
>
> I was under the impression that zswap requires a backing storage. Can
> you elaborate on how to configure zswap to not need a backing storage?
>
AFAIK, currently zswap can't be used without a backing storage.
Perhaps you can take a try by creating a swap device backed by a file on
storage.
--
Regards,
-Bob