Hi Andi,
On Tuesday, 17 December 2024 18:12:08 CET Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Janusz,
>
> ...
>
> > > > +
> > > > cond_resched();
> > > >
> > > > - if (intel_gt_wait_for_idle(gt, HZ * 3) == -ETIME) {
> > > > + if (intel_gt_wait_for_idle(gt, HZ * timeout_ms / 500) == -
> > ETIME) {
> > >
> > > where is this 500 coming from?
> >
> > / 1000 would convert it to seconds as needed, and / 500 used instead was
> > supposed to to mean that we are willing to wait for preempt_timeout_ms *
2.
> > Sorry for that shortcut. Would you like me to provide a clarifying
comment,
> > or maybe better use explicit 2 * preempt_timeout / 1000 ?
>
> It was clear that you were doubling it, but what's more
> interesting to know (perhaps in a comment) is why you are
> choosing to use the double of the timeout_ms instead of other
> values.
>
> Makes sense?
Yes, good question.
Is it possible for more than one bb to hang? If yes then should we wait
longer than the longest preemption timeout? Before I assumed that maybe we
should, just in case, but now, having that revisited and reconsidered, I tend
to agree that the longest preempt timeout, perhaps with a small margin (let's
say +100ms) should be enough to recover from a single failing test case. Let
me verify if that works for the linked case.
Thanks,
Janusz
>
> Thanks,
> Andi
>
