On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:16:16AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is > > > > equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the > > > > "quick" set. > > > > > > > > > How equally is "equally"? Is the test actually redundant, should it be > > > removed altogether? > > > > The stress patterns exhibited by the test are identical to others in > > BAT. The accuracy tests are covered by others in BAT. The actual flow > > (edge coverage) will be subtly different and therefore the test is still > > unique and may catch future bugs not caught by others. But as far as BAT > > goes the likelihood of this catching something not caught by others > > within BAT is very very small. > > But given that we have 50k gem tests in full igt, does it really make > sense to keep it? Imo there's not much point in keeping around every > minute combinatorial variation if it means we can never run the full set > of testcases. Some serious trimming of the herd is probably called for. 50k? I've 500k in gem_concurrent_all alone that I wish to be run... Wishlist: fuzz testing of both the driver and gpu simultaneously. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
