Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 09:39:27 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        970639@bugs.debian.org, Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>,
        Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
Subject: Re: ZSWAP still considered experimental?
Message-Id: <20220531093927.2292b3defaf9b8cf431ca369@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <10087857.nUPlyArG6x@bagend>
References: <10087857.nUPlyArG6x@bagend>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 31 May 2022 10:41:05 +0200 Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> 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".