Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85016-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-182-gaab6630818-fm-20240222.002-gaab66308
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0c6127da-53d8-4c37-8337-e64e3e91bbaf@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <kq3cpbz4ctqvfhtlh7f7wxd7ub3izdjovhv2jqkjasre7u6y2k@exaw42ber3f6>
References: <20240226124736.1272949-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20240226124736.1272949-3-arnd@kernel.org>
 <kq3cpbz4ctqvfhtlh7f7wxd7ub3izdjovhv2jqkjasre7u6y2k@exaw42ber3f6>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:26:29 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: "Oded Gabbay" <ogabbay@kernel.org>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=C3=B6m?= <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
 "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
 "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
 "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>, "Dave Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
 "Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>, "Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
 "Matt Roper" <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>,
 "Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [v2] drm/xe/xe2: fix 64-bit division in pte_update_size
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, at 17:40, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:46:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>Fixes: 237412e45390 ("drm/xe: Enable 32bits build")
>>Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>---
>>v2: use correct Fixes tag
>
> but what about the other comment? How are we supposed to use
> DIV_ROUND_UP() but then in some places (which?) have to open code it?

The problem is not DIV_ROUND_UP() but the division but the 64-bit
division itself. There is a DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL() macro that would
address the build failure as well, but doing the shift is much
more efficient here since it can be done in a couple of instructions.

> What compiler does this fail on?

I saw it with clang-19 on 32-bit arm, but I assume it happens
on others as well.

>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c
>>index a66fdf2d2991..ee1bb938c493 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_migrate.c
>>@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ static u32 pte_update_size(struct xe_migrate *m,
>> 	} else {
>> 		/* Clip L0 to available size */
>> 		u64 size = min(*L0, (u64)avail_pts * SZ_2M);
>>-		u64 num_4k_pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, XE_PAGE_SIZE);
>>+		u32 num_4k_pages = (size + XE_PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> XE_PTE_SHIFT;
>
> also the commit message doesn't seem to match the patch as you are only
> changing one instance.

Not sure what you mean. As I wrote in the changelog, the
second instance is fixed by using a 32-bit division here,
which does not cause link failures.

      Arnd