What is wrong with the old approach?
I would rather say that the address should be limited by the level shift
instead. This way we avoid the modulo altogether.
Christian.
Am 08.12.2017 um 11:56 schrieb Chunming Zhou:
> Change-Id: I40ecf31ad4b51022a2c0c076ae45188b6e9d63de
> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou at amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> index 8904ccf78fc9..affe64e42cef 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> @@ -1335,11 +1335,13 @@ void amdgpu_vm_get_entry(struct amdgpu_pte_update_params *p, uint64_t addr,
> *parent = NULL;
> *entry = &p->vm->root;
> while ((*entry)->entries) {
> - unsigned idx = addr >> amdgpu_vm_level_shift(p->adev, level--);
> + unsigned idx = addr >> amdgpu_vm_level_shift(p->adev, level);
>
> - idx %= amdgpu_bo_size((*entry)->base.bo) / 8;
> + idx %= amdgpu_vm_num_entries(p->adev, level);
> *parent = *entry;
> *entry = &(*entry)->entries[idx];
> + if (level)
> + level--;
> }
>
> if (level != 0)
