On 21/07/2017 12:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
I would like having rich tags as well.
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.
I don't think every test is an unique combination of tags. For example
tagged with "gem pread" we woud have tests doing small reads, large
reads, overflowing reads etc. I would invent new tags for all these cases.
Anyway, I am not sure what is the high level message here. Do you like
the general idea but find the implementation lacking, or think something
completely different would be the easier route to the equally functional
end result?
I like tags because they separate from the test naming namespace. I used
the example of "default" which means different things in the current
test names. But as I said it is just a proposal.
And gem_concurrent_* is probably on of the hardest ones to elegantly
handle since the name is generated from so many parts.
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
