Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-19 12:57:54) > > On 15/12/2017 21:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-15 18:24:42) > >> > >> Ah I see.. only for the spin batch. Why not then gem_sync or maybe we > >> should add igt_spin_batch_free_sync? > > > > gem_quiescent_gpu goes one step further than gem_sync and says the system is > > idle / parked afterwards. Which is often quite important > > > > Yes, seems like I'm repeating this pattern often enough that throwing it > > into igt_spin_batch is worthwhile. Also I want to include a spin_batch > > variant that guarantees it has started executing before returning. > > Sadly will require MI_STORE_DWORD so limit it's availability. I think > > I'll wait for the spin_batch options to land before adding more > > parameters. > > Not sure what is the status. I'd be OK with either gem_quiescent_gpu at > the start of subtests, or making igt_spin_batch_free ensure batch > finished. That should also stop all leaks between tests AFAICT. We could add gem_sync() to batch_free (and have a __variant to avoid it for certain tests like pm_rps, hmm, the more I think about it the more places I can think of where we want to avoid the sync....). That still leaves us with a quandary if we want to be sure the system is idle/parked (i.e. !gt.awake). I think we still end up with both; a few judiciously placed gem_quiescent_gpu(). -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
