From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0217833D6E4 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771513255; cv=none; b=NWijuzCEkdjAcXOJ/4SqaE2IhMGUnWwkvPBniqgRFW3KclEHsCzQVcgZkOMLpJUyDk5r8zhbvPa9PRCo7TqOgNvIh8JyKwn1M8h2qoNP+abGSS355Yq345vgvlP/u8pOJbAbr9xjjAUHihzqdydgrfokwEtLBtM12ITjl62/I7w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771513255; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mP4ZC0TEh8C+GrS8QKMlO+6aITosKr4Nbnd175LCzeQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=N/aAqrc8IC6jYN6EFf7HUTxalg0xAirS9uBfKzARSe6S4iIj7X5uyfECm3KlHBY0ZPr3503XVuv6hwAbamUcAA2ZYFPzPGYTj4jIVaRVrdAY/1uxltOXjlICv5cMIi5/sfP/NIfdKtAk3TDGVBEPgejt8LD7t+0sXgbr4NDiHEo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=sZCLI2iw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="sZCLI2iw" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=mP4ZC0TEh8C+GrS8QKMlO+6aITosKr4Nbnd175LCzeQ=; b=sZCLI2iwwtDfv00ulHbwZN08JS TG+1RH2RthzkUqgNN3LdKJHRV3O9/7TFc3cpinGW4bWdeq7CYbRKtkueZoVdj+Up7Rs38+ep+1i+Z 5hIeas+id064CMRlUo7sS6M36RAekYqpHKTzCZhGm7hNJBWOzbvMfV7uXHHpewouWOGE6pC2YEF1n JfdVeuc+Tc+On2OpMsWmvb6GiQpa07Q/Blyb2FrKdWGSW45CIaCKszXUX5wKIkXwvoBX3WrIVy7Tc QYGRXMmIa97PF2633C1GJfvVDb3SJaPZUSb67gYcj0N86jsPD/BkaK8MqgdkHJFobr7stM+99RX7T Gq97demg==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vt5WL-00000007lC1-3YKs; Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:00:49 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:00:49 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Hannes Reinecke , lsf-pc , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Memory fragmentation with large block sizes Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 06:53:28AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Additionally, why is contiguous memory required for block sizes > larger than the page size? Does this perhaps come from the VFS layer? > If so, is this something that can be fixed? No.