Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2017-12-15 19:01:11)
> Since commit: drm/i915/scheduler: Support user-defined priorities, the
> driver support an extra context param to set context's priority. Add
> tests for that interface and update invalid tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/gem_ctx_param.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param.c
> index c20ae1ee..9a222e60 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> */
>
> #include "igt.h"
> +#include <limits.h>
>
> IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Basic test for context set/get param input validation.");
>
> @@ -136,11 +137,85 @@ igt_main
> gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg);
> }
>
> +#define MAX_PRIO 1023
> +#define MIN_PRIO -MAX_PRIO
> +#define DEF_PRIO 0
Take these from the uapi header.
> +
> + arg.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> +
> + igt_subtest("root-set-priority") {
> + arg.ctx_id = ctx;
> + arg.size = 0;
> +
Bonus points for CAP_SYS_NICE checking.
arg.size validation checking.
arg.value > u32 (checking for overflows)
gem_context_get_param() of a new context should return DEF_PRIO
set_param on older machines returns -ENODEV
And that's not even trying to fuzz bad values beyond the sanity checks
of I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY.
> + for (int i = MIN_PRIO; i <= MAX_PRIO; i += 1023) {
It's a couple of ioctls, do all 1024. Do them in a random order, trust
no one.
> + arg.value = i;
> + gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg);
> +
> + gem_context_get_param(fd, &arg);
> + igt_assert(arg.value == i); /* Verify prio was set */
igt_assert_eq(arg.value, i);
But doesn't verify the priority does anything. Just the RTT in the API,
which is a nice verification nevertheless.
> + }
> + }
> +
> + igt_subtest("root-set-priority-invalid-value") {
> + int prio_levels[] = {INT_MIN, MIN_PRIO - 1, MAX_PRIO + 1, INT_MAX};
> + int old_value;
> + arg.ctx_id = ctx;
> +
> + gem_context_get_param(fd, &arg);
> + old_value = arg.value;
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < (sizeof(prio_levels) / sizeof(int)); i++) {
ARRAY_SIZE(prio_levels);
> + arg.value = prio_levels[i];
> + igt_assert_eq(__gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg), -EINVAL);
> +
> + gem_context_get_param(fd, &arg);
> + igt_assert(arg.value == old_value); /* Verify prio was not set */
> + }
> + }
> +
> + igt_subtest("user-set-priority") {
> + arg.size = 0;
> +
> + igt_fork(child, 1) {
> + igt_drop_root();
> + for (int i = MIN_PRIO; i <= DEF_PRIO; i += 1023) {
> + arg.value = i;
> + gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg);
> +
> + gem_context_get_param(fd, &arg);
> + igt_assert(arg.value == i); /* Verify prio was set */
I wonder if the CAP_SYS_NICE limit might be adjusted in the future.
Certainly preemption rules are flexible, as we haven't told anyone about
them yet.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
