On 06.09.2023 10:11, Boris Brezillon wrote: >On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 19:45:24 +0100 >Adrián Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The current implementation will try to pick the highest available size >> display unit as soon as the BO size exceeds that of the previous >> multiplier. >> >> By selecting a higher threshold, we could show more accurate size numbers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Adrián Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >> index 762965e3d503..0b5fbd493e05 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >> @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static void print_size(struct drm_printer *p, const char *stat, >> unsigned u; >> >> for (u = 0; u < ARRAY_SIZE(units) - 1; u++) { >> - if (sz < SZ_1K) >> + if (sz < (SZ_1K * 10000)) >> break; > >This threshold looks a bit random. How about picking a unit that allows >us to print the size with no precision loss? > > for (u = 0; u < ARRAY_SIZE(units) - 1; u++) { > if (sz & (SZ_1K - 1)) > break; > } In this case I picked up on Rob Clark's suggestion of choosing a hard limit of perhaps 10k or 100k times the current unit before moving on to the next one. While this approach guarantees that we don't lose precision, it would render a tad too long a number in KiB for BO's that aren't a multiple of a MiB. >> sz = div_u64(sz, SZ_1K); >> }