On 22/03/2018 18:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-03-22 17:32:46)
On 22/03/18 05:42, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-22 12:36:58)
On 22/03/2018 11:39, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-22 11:17:11)
trigger_reset(fd);
+
+ /* HACK for CI */
+ igt_assert(igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts) < 5e9);
igt_seconds_elapsed() the approximation is worth the readability.
In this case you might like to try igt_set_timeout(), as I think each
subtest and exithandlers are in place to make them robust against
premature failures.
Well this was just to see that will happen on the shards here. As
mentioned in the commit I get that yet unexplained GPU hang at subtest
exit here. So the assert above is just to notice if the same happens on
shards.
And I was thinking it was a reasonable enhancement :) Probably more so
for igt/gem_wait itself to ask that if we reset the request we are
waiting upon it completes in a timely manner. (We don't care about
wedged handling there, just reset handling.)
How about checking for reset when we do gem_test_engine(), which seems
to not fail on reset, (crudely https://paste.debian.net/1016059/)?
I was thinking that the timeout would be good around the test as a
whole, because it is now meant to be uberfast.
Whole subtests with igt_set_timeout, or alternatively I was thinking to
just time the trigger_reset helper. Since other bits are covered by
short timeout gem_wait now, I think tigger_reset is the only one which I
need to additionally cover. If we stick with signals for delayed hangs,
that also might be simpler than to find a different signal than SIGALARM
for it (so it doesn't clash with igt_set_timeout).
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
