On 03/07/2018 12:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-07-03 12:00:13)
On 03/07/2018 11:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
We want to do a complete pass before checking the timeout, but just in
case the pass is quite slow, touch the NMI watchdog to prevent a
false positive.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_gtt.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_gtt.c
index eefcf7b84054..71c0654b4b4d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/list_sort.h>
+#include <linux/nmi.h>
#include <linux/prime_numbers.h>
#include "../i915_selftest.h"
@@ -686,6 +687,13 @@ static int pot_hole(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
i915_vma_unpin(vma);
err = i915_vma_unbind(vma);
GEM_BUG_ON(err);
+
+ /*
+ * Do a complete pass before timing out, but just
+ * in case we are running too slow, ping the NMI
+ * watchdog.
+ */
+ touch_nmi_watchdog();
}
if (igt_timeout(end_time,
Why only in pot_hole, is this the slowest test?
It's the only test of this style where we don't have the igt_timeout
(cond_resched) inside the innermost loop.
So.. the obvious question.. :) Why not move igt_timeout to the innermost
loop and avoid low-level hackery?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
