Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:24:32PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: >> This successfully catches vc4's lack of dmabuf fencing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Has anyone looked into shared infrastructure for tests to do >> KMS/dmabuf/etc. things with a generic "get a BO that's being rendered >> to for this driver" call? > > We have some helpers for i915 to make a bo busy with an explicit release > (we create a looping batch which we break with a cpu write), for extremely > well-control busy tests. Not sure how well that's portable, and without > full control it's hard to make busy tests reliable. I think I would need a new kernel ioctl for that. I can queue up 32MB read/write jobs, and with ~1GB/s of memory bandwidth, that's been plenty of time to write tests that catch at least some bugs in synchronization.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
