On 22 November 2016 at 14:28, <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This subtest verifies the access ordering of multiple consumer threads.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/sw_sync.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/sw_sync.c b/tests/sw_sync.c
> index ada1243..cd0c588 100644
> --- a/tests/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/tests/sw_sync.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
> * Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> */
>
> +#include <pthread.h>
> +#include <semaphore.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> @@ -39,6 +41,15 @@
>
> IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test SW Sync Framework");
>
> +typedef struct {
> + int timeline;
> + uint32_t thread_id;
> + uint32_t nbr_threads;
> + uint32_t nbr_iterations;
Any reason why these two cannot be just defines?
> + volatile uint32_t * volatile counter;
> + sem_t *sem;
> +} data_t;
> +
> static void test_alloc_timeline(void)
> {
> int timeline;
> @@ -219,6 +230,95 @@ static void test_sync_merge_same(void)
> close(timeline);
> }
>
> +static void * test_sync_multi_consumer_thread(void *arg)
> +{
> + data_t *data = arg;
> + int thread_id = data->thread_id;
> + int nbr_threads = data->nbr_threads;
> + int timeline = data->timeline;
> + int iterations = data->nbr_iterations;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
> + int next_point = i * nbr_threads + thread_id;
> + int fence = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, next_point);
> +
> + ret = sync_wait(fence, 1000);
> + if (ret == -1)
> + {
> + return (void *) 1;
> + }
> +
> + if (*(data->counter) != next_point)
> + {
> + return (void *) 1;
> + }
> +
> + sem_post(data->sem);
> + close(fence);
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_sync_multi_consumer(void)
> +{
> + const uint32_t nbr_threads = 8;
> + const uint32_t nbr_iterations = 1 << 14;
> + data_t data_arr[nbr_threads];
> + pthread_t thread_arr[nbr_threads];
> + sem_t sem;
> + int timeline;
> + volatile uint32_t counter = 0;
> + uintptr_t thread_ret = 0;
> + data_t data;
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + sem_init(&sem, 0, 0);
> + timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
> +
> + data.nbr_iterations = nbr_iterations;
> + data.nbr_threads = nbr_threads;
> + data.counter = &counter;
> + data.timeline = timeline;
> + data.sem = &sem;
> +
> + /* Start sync threads. */
> + for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads; i++)
> + {
> + data_arr[i] = data;
> + data_arr[i].thread_id = i;
> + ret = pthread_create(&thread_arr[i], NULL,
> + test_sync_multi_consumer_thread,
> + (void *) &(data_arr[i]));
> + igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> + }
> +
> + /* Produce 'content'. */
> + for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads * nbr_iterations; i++)
> + {
> + sem_wait(&sem);
> +
> + counter++;
> + sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);
> + }
> +
> + /* Wait for threads to complete. */
> + for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads; i++)
> + {
> + uintptr_t local_thread_ret;
> + pthread_join(thread_arr[i], (void **)&local_thread_ret);
> + thread_ret |= local_thread_ret;
> + }
> +
> + close(timeline);
> + sem_destroy(&sem);
> +
> + igt_assert_f(counter == nbr_threads * nbr_iterations,
> + "Counter has unexpected value.\n");
In this case I think igt_assert_eq would be more useful.
> + igt_assert_f(thread_ret == 0, "A sync thread reported failure.\n");
Here probably as well, unless the message can be improved.
> +}
> +
> igt_main
> {
> igt_subtest("alloc_timeline")
> @@ -241,5 +341,8 @@ igt_main
>
> igt_subtest("sync_merge_same")
> test_sync_merge_same();
> +
> + igt_subtest("sync_multi_consumer")
> + test_sync_multi_consumer();
> }
>
> --
> 2.10.2
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
