On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:22:56PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:14:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:29:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:07:39AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > For the basic error state, we only desire that an error state be created > > > > > following a hang. For that purpose, we do not need a real hang (slow > > > > > 6-12s) but can inject one instead (fast <1s). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Should we instead speed up hangcheck? I think there's lots of value in > > > > making sure not just error dumping, but also hang detection works somewhat > > > > in BAT. Since if it doesn't any attempt at a full run will lead to pretty > > > > serious disasters. And I have this dream that BAT is the gating thing > > > > deciding whether a patch series deserves a complete pre-merge run ;-) > > > > > > We have full-hang detection in BAT elsewhere as well. This particular > > > test was only asking the question "do we generate an error state", hence > > > why I felt it was safe to just do that and skip a simulated hang. > > > > Hm, is it worth it then in BAT? Or does the other test not check whether > > the error capture part was mildly successful? Might be worth it to just > > combine them (in BAT) for even more time saved. Either way ack on this. > > No, the other tests are to check we survive a hang, not that we generate > post-mortem error state. This test takes approximately 0.2s on a slow > device (at mild debug levels), and I think is concise enough to keep > separate. Ok, makes sense. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
