> -----Original Message----- > From: Zanoni, Paulo R > Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 5:54 PM > To: Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: increase FBC wait > timeout to 5s > > Em Seg, 2017-08-07 às 06:51 +0000, Lofstedt, Marta escreveu: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zanoni, Paulo R > > > Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 9:56 PM > > > To: Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > > > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: increase > > > FBC wait timeout to 5s > > > > > > Em Sex, 2017-08-04 às 09:47 +0000, Lofstedt, Marta escreveu: > > > > +Paolo > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Lofstedt, Marta > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:17 PM > > > > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Cc: Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx>; Lofstedt, Marta > > > > > <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: increase > > > > > FBC wait timeout to 5s > > > > > > > > > > The subtests: igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@fbc-*draw* > > > > > has non-consistent results, pending between fail and pass. > > > > > The fails are always due to "FBC disabled". > > > > > With this increase in timeout the flip-flop behavior is no > > > > > longer reproducible. > > > > > > This is a partial revert of: > > > > > > 64590c7b768dc8d8dd962f812d5ff5a39e7e8b54 > > > kms_frontbuffer_tracking: reduce the FBC wait timeout to 2s > > > > > > (but there's no need to make it a full revert if you don't need) > > > > > > It would be nice to investigate why we're needing 5 seconds instead > > > of > > > 2 now, the document it in the commit message. Also document that > > > this is a partial revert. > > > > Paulo, do you have data backing up that 2 seconds was ever OK, I fail > > ~1/10 on various fbc subtests. > > All the data I have is the commit message of 64590c7b and the testing I did. I > would imagine something changed in the upstream tree since then, causing > this to need a longer timeout, that's why I suggested investigating. > If I run current IGT with Kernel 4.2.0, which was released 30 august 2015, that should be around the time when the 64590c7b was done, all kms_frontbuffer_tracking tests fail. If I reset IGT to 64590c7b half of the flip-flopping tests consistently fail the rest consistently pass over 10 runs. If I run IGT@64590c7b on 4.13-rc3+ all kms_fronbuffer_tracking fail. So, indeed some of these tests appear to actually have passed 2 years ago, but it also seem that both the tests and the i915 have change a lot during 2 years. Anyways, I will do some timing analyze to investigate what is really going on here. /Marta > > > > /Marta > > > > > > Acked-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101623 > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c > > > > > b/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c > > > > > index c24e4a81..8bec5d5a 100644 > > > > > --- a/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c > > > > > +++ b/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c > > > > > @@ -923,7 +923,7 @@ static bool fbc_stride_not_supported(void) > > > > > > > > > > static bool fbc_wait_until_enabled(void) { > > > > > - return igt_wait(fbc_is_enabled(), 2000, 1); > > > > > + return igt_wait(fbc_is_enabled(), 5000, 1); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > static bool psr_wait_until_enabled(void) > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.11.0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
