Re: [PATCH v5 00/21] Virtual Swap Space

[Nhat Pham]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 10:23 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * I still think there's a good chance we can *significantly* close the
> gap overall between a design with virtual swap and a design without.
> It's a bit premature to commit to a vswap-optional route (which to be
> completely honest I'm still not confident is possible to satisfy all
> of our requirements).

And to further note - these benchmark measure, in effect, purely swap
overhead. In a production environment with a lot of non-swap work, as
long as the gap is close enough I think we would be fine, even for a
hostile case like a fast swapfile-backend (I assume SSD swap's
bottleneck will be the IO mostly).

I will stare at your responses to see if there is other benchmark I
can play with, but it would be very helpful if you can share your full
suite :)