On 2016-09-15 04:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:40:11PM -0400, robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This subtest verifies that waiting on fences works properly.
Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/sw_sync.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/sw_sync.c b/tests/sw_sync.c
index fcb2f57..3061279 100644
--- a/tests/sw_sync.c
+++ b/tests/sw_sync.c
@@ -81,6 +81,41 @@ static void test_alloc_merge_fence(void)
close(timeline[1]);
}
+static void test_sync_wait(void)
These are not testing waits but busy queries.
test_sync_wait refers to sw_sync_wait, which may or may not be
meaningful to refer to.
Do you still prefer test_sync_busy?
static void test_sync_busy(void)
+{
+ int fence, ret;
+ int timeline;
+
+ timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
+ fence = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, 5);
+
+ /* Wait on fence until timeout */
Misleading comment
Agreed.
+ ret = sw_sync_wait(fence, 0);
+ igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Failure waiting on fence until timeout\n");
igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Fence created in an unexpectedly signaled state\n");
Agreed.
+
+ /* Advance timeline from 0 -> 1 */
+ sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);
+
+ /* Wait on fence until timeout */
+ ret = sw_sync_wait(fence, 0);
+ igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Failure waiting on fence until timeout\n");
igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Fence signaled earlier (timeline value 1, fence seqno 5)\n");
Agreed.
+
+ /* Signal the fence */
/* Advance timeline from 1 -> 5: signaling the fence (seqno 5)*/
Agreed.
+ sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 4);
+
+ /* Wait successfully */
Usless comment
Agreed.
+ ret = sw_sync_wait(fence, 0);
+ igt_assert_f(ret > 0, "Failure waiting on fence\n");
igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Fence not signaled (timeline value 5, fence seqno 5)\n");
If we have a timeline info, we could use %d to say the current value.
Another test would be to then
seqno = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n_primes; i++) {
seqno += primes[i];
sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, primes[i]);
igt_assert_eq(sw_sync_timeline_get_seqno(timeline), seqno);
}
This looks like a good addition, but primes has not previously been
defined. Do you have preference for primes or would any increment, like
random be ok?
+
+ /* Go even further, and confirm wait still succeeds */
+ sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 10);
+ ret = sw_sync_wait(fence, 0);
+ igt_assert_f(ret > 0, "Failure waiting ahead\n");
igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "Fence now not signaled! (timeline value 10, fence seqno 5)\n");
Agreed.
Thanks for the thorough review!
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
