Hi all,
Thanks for you comments.
On 30/08/2023 08:37, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:58:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 04:26:06PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 02:19:53PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Developers can easily execute several tests on different devices
by just pushing their branch to their fork in a repository hosted
on gitlab.freedesktop.org which has an infrastructure to run jobs
in several runners and farms with different devices.
There are also other automated tools that uprev dependencies,
monitor the infra, and so on that are already used by the Mesa
project, and we can reuse them too.
Also, store expectations about what the DRM drivers are supposed
to pass in the IGT test suite. By storing the test expectations
along with the code, we can make sure both stay in sync with each
other so we can know when a code change breaks those expectations.
Also, include a configuration file that points to the out-of-tree
CI scripts.
This will allow all contributors to drm to reuse the infrastructure
already in gitlab.freedesktop.org to test the driver on several
generations of the hardware.
Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Helen Koike <helen.koike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
Ok I pushed this into a topic/drm-ci branch in drm.git and asked sfr to
include that branch in linux-next.
But also I'd like to see a lot more acks here, we should be able to at
least pile up a bunch of (driver) maintainers from drm-misc in support of
this. Also maybe media, at least I've heard noises that they're maybe
interested too? Plus anyone else, the more the better.
I'm not really convinced by that approach at all, and most of the issues
I see are shown by the follow-up series here:
I'm not fully convinced either, more like "let's see". In that narrow
sense, ack. I don't see harm in trying, if you're also open to backing
off in case it does not pan out.
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20230825122435.316272-1-vignesh.raman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
* We hardcode a CI farm setup into the kernel
These could be out of tree.
There is a version outside the kernel tree where you just point the CI
configuration to a url:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/drm-ci/-/merge_requests/1
We were discussing it here
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/linuxtv-ci/2023-August/000027.html
(I guess Sima's reply didn't got into the mailing list) but the argument
of not having out of tree repo is due to historical bad experience of
having to sync the kernel with the code and it can become messy.
* We cannot trust that the code being run is actually the one being
pushed into gitlab
We can improve this if this is a requirement.
For DTS configuration we can work with overlays (which is the current
modification on that patchset). For other changes that are not suitable
to upstream (and should be rare) we can see if we work with the
`-external-fixes` approach or another approach, we can check it case by
case to understand why it is not suitable for upstream.
* IMO, and I know we disagree here, any IGT test we enable for a given
platform should work, period. Allowing failures and flaky tests just
sweeps whatever issue is there under the rug. If the test is at
fault, we should fix the test, if the driver / kernel is at fault,
then I certainly want to know about it.
I believe we need a baseline and understand the current status of tests.
If you check the xfails folder in the patch you can see that I had to
add a few tests on *-skips.txt since those tests crashes the system and
other on *-fails.txt that are consistently not passing.
Since the "any IGT test we enable for a given platform should work" is
not a reality atm, we need to have a clear view about which tests are
not corresponding to it, so we can start fixing. First we need to be
aware of the issues so we can start fixing them, otherwise we will stay
in the "no tests no failures" ground :)
At least for display, where this also depends on peripheral hardware,
it's not an easy problem, really.
Aside from the Chamelium tests, which tests actually rely on peripheral
hardware? On EDID and hotplug, sure, but that can easily be set up from
the userspace, or something like
https://www.lindy-international.com/HDMI-2-0-EDID-Emulator.htm?websale8=ld0101.ld021102&pi=32115
How reliable do you need it to be? How many nines? Who is going to
debug the issues that need hundreds or thousands of runs to reproduce?
If a commit makes some test less reliable, how long is it going to
take to even see that or pinpoint that?
I mean, that's also true for failures or success then. How many times do
you need a test to run properly to qualify it as a meaningful test? How
do you know that it's not a flaky test?
Ultimately, it's about trust. If, for a given test that just failed, I
can't be certain that it's because of the branch I just submitted, I
will just ignore the tests results after a while.
This is already what plagues kernelci, and we should do better.
This is something that is really nice on Mesa3D, a patch only gets
merged if tests passes, which forces people to not ignore it, which
forces the code to be fixed and the CI to be constantly maintained.
Of course there are bad days there, but there is real value. Nice thread
to check: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/8635 (thanks
Alyssa for the feedback).
And I'm sorry, but if some part of the kernel or driver just isn't
reliable, then we shouldn't claim it is (except for all the times it
isn't). If no-one has the time to look into it, fine, but flagging it
under a flaky test doesn't help anyone.
At least we would know what is there that isn't reliable.
We could also define policies like: failing one out of 10 is fine. And
we can have scripts that do a stress test and report back.
It is really nice for users to know this kind of status of drivers.
Thanks for your feedback, please keep them coming :)
Regards,
Helen
Like, from that patch, how can I know what is the issue with
kms_hdmi_inject@inject-4k or kms_addfb_basic@addfb25-bad-modifier on
mt8173. I certainly can't. And neither of those have anything to do with
peripheral hardware.
Maxime
