Quoting Imre Deak (2017-11-01 09:56:22) > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:23:25PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Imre Deak (2017-10-31 13:44:47) > > > Doing modeset on internal panels may have a considerable overhead due to > > > the panel specific power sequencing delays. To avoid long test runtimes > > > limit the runtime of each subtest. Randomize the plane/pipe combinations > > > to preserve the test coverage on such panels at least over multiple test > > > runs. > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103334 > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tests/kms_atomic_transition.c | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/kms_atomic_transition.c b/tests/kms_atomic_transition.c > > > index 4c295125..ac67fc3a 100644 > > > --- a/tests/kms_atomic_transition.c > > > +++ b/tests/kms_atomic_transition.c > > > @@ -39,6 +39,14 @@ > > > #define DRM_CAP_CURSOR_HEIGHT 0x9 > > > #endif > > > > > > +#define MAX_SUBTEST_DURATION_NS (20ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC) > > > + > > > +struct test_config { > > > + igt_display_t *display; > > > + bool user_seed; > > > + int seed; > > > +}; > > > + > > > struct plane_parms { > > > struct igt_fb *fb; > > > uint32_t width, height; > > > @@ -401,6 +409,28 @@ static void wait_for_transition(igt_display_t *display, enum pipe pipe, bool non > > > } > > > } > > > > > > +/* Copied from https://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/shuffle.html */ > > > +static void shuffle_array(uint32_t *array, int size, int seed) > > > +{ > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { > > > + int j = i + rand() / (RAND_MAX / (size - i) + 1); > > > + > > > + igt_swap(array[i], array[j]); > > > + } > > > +} > > > > igt_permute_array() > > Thanks, will use that instead. > > > Not saying anything, but I was told using CI for stochastic coverage was > > a flat no... > > Ok, but it would only be the case for slow panels where the alternative > is not to run the test at all. And is this a problem if we can replay a > failing case with --seed? If the purpose of CI is purely regression testing and not exploratory debugging, each PW run must be with the same seed as the CI_DRM run. The seed must be clearly displayed in the results so that when comparing CI_DRM runs the flip-flop can be traced to the change in seed. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
