Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-09 11:54:13)
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> We need to use absolute tolerance when asserting on percentages. Relative
> tolerance in this case is unfair and inaccurate since it's strictness
> varies with relative target busyness.
>
> v2:
> * Do not include spin batch edit and submit into measured time.
> * Open PMU before child is in test PWM phase.
> * No need to emit test PWM for twice as long with the new explicit
> synchroniazation via pipe.
> * Log test duration in ms for better readability.
> * Drop inverse assert. (Chris Wilson)
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v1
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Would be nice to add a comment now we have a reasonable suspicion:
> @@ -1537,19 +1545,16 @@ accuracy(int gem_fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e,
>
> igt_nsec_elapsed(&test_start);
> do {
> - struct timespec t_busy = { };
> - unsigned int target_idle_us;
> -
> - igt_nsec_elapsed(&t_busy);
> + unsigned int target_idle_us, t_busy;
>
> /* Restart the spinbatch. */
> __rearm_spin_batch(spin);
> __submit_spin_batch(gem_fd, &obj, e);
/*
* Note that the submission may be delayed to a tasklet (ksoftirqd)
* which cannot run until we sleep as we hog the cpu (we are RT).
*/
> - measured_usleep(busy_us);
> + t_busy = measured_usleep(busy_us);
> igt_spin_batch_end(spin);
> gem_sync(gem_fd, obj.handle);
And back to thinking how we can kick the tasklet, or kick the habit.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
