Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-21 12:08:00)
>
> On 21/07/2017 11:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-21 11:20:05)
> >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> [snip]
>
> >> --- a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> >> +++ b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> >> @@ -1492,47 +1492,47 @@ run_mode(const char *prefix,
> >> igt_subtest_group {
> >> igt_fixture p->require();
> >>
> >> - igt_subtest_f("%s-%s-%s-sanitycheck0%s%s", prefix, mode->name, p->prefix, suffix, h->suffix) {
> >> + igt_gem_stress_subtest_f("", "%s-%s-%s-sanitycheck0%s%s", prefix, mode->name, p->prefix, suffix, h->suffix) {
> >
> > They are not all stress tests. So you want to be able to build the tags
> > dynamically... Similarly they offer different types of "stress", you
> > probably don't want to lump the hang tests in amongst thes plain
> > concurrency tests, and you probably want the swapping tests separated
> > etc. Stress is missing the point.
>
> Dynamic tags are doable. If you just wanted to include "stress"
> dynamically current RFC can already do that.
>
> igt_gem_subtest_f(is_stress ? "stress" : "", name, ...)
>
> If you wanted a dynamic set of multiple tags that could be added as well
> I guess. Like a flag based control of "stress", "swapping", "hang",
> "basic", or something. How nice or ugly API depends on the actual
> requirements.
hang, swap, shrink, gtt, wc, cpu, pwrite, pread, contexts, fds, prime,
dmabuf and many more when you start looking for the complete set of
tags/keywords/categories.
Currently, we have tags (keywords) embedded into the test/subtest name.
(One way of looking at it, every test would be a unique combination of
tags.) Being able to filter tests on those tags is definitely lacking.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
