Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-27 09:54:35) > > On 27/03/2018 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote: > > The test is whether with all but one engine busy we record the correct > > load on each engine. If we only have one engine, this test degenerates > > into all-idle/all-busy, so we can skip to avoid crashing on the > > assumption that we have a busy spinner. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/perf_pmu.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/perf_pmu.c b/tests/perf_pmu.c > > index f27b7ec7..b59af818 100644 > > --- a/tests/perf_pmu.c > > +++ b/tests/perf_pmu.c > > @@ -513,6 +513,7 @@ most_busy_check_all(int gem_fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e, > > val[i++] = I915_PMU_ENGINE_BUSY(e_->class, e_->instance); > > } > > igt_assert(i == num_engines); > > + igt_require(spin); /* at least one busy engine */ > > Or igt_require(num_engines > 1) higher up. But same effect: I'm happy for both, if you want a preemptive r-b :) > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
