From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:44:31 +0000 Subject: Re: USB mass storage and ARM cache coherency Message-Id: <1268343871.22204.709.camel@pasglop> List-Id: References: <20100303215437.GF2579@ucw.cz> <1267709756.6526.380.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20100304135128.GA12191@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1267712512.31654.176.camel@mulgrave.site> <1267716578.6526.483.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20100304154103.GA9384@linux-sh.org> <1267726049.6526.543.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1267738660.22204.77.camel@pasglop> <20100305011745.GC26618@linux-sh.org> <1267764295.22204.102.camel@pasglop> <20100310035249.GB17693@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20100310035249.GB17693@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 12:52 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > Well, it does start to get a bit painful with sparsemem section or > NUMA > node IDs also digging in to the page flags on 32-bit.. the benefits > would > have to be pretty compelling to offset the pain. Unless we play a dangerous trick and re-use another flag that isn't meaningful for allocated pages... maybe PG_buddy ? Or do I miss something about that guy semantics ? Cheers, Ben.