On 05/07/2018 12:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-07-02 13:00:07)
On 02/07/2018 10:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
As we want to compare a templated tiling pattern against the target_bo,
we need to know that the swizzling is compatible. Or else the two
tiling pattern may differ due to underlying page address that we cannot
know, and so the test may sporadically fail.
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102575
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/gem_tiled_partial_pwrite_pread.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/gem_tiled_partial_pwrite_pread.c b/tests/gem_tiled_partial_pwrite_pread.c
index fe573c37c..83c57c07d 100644
--- a/tests/gem_tiled_partial_pwrite_pread.c
+++ b/tests/gem_tiled_partial_pwrite_pread.c
@@ -249,6 +249,24 @@ static void test_partial_read_writes(void)
}
}
+static bool known_swizzling(uint32_t handle)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_gem_get_tiling2 {
+ uint32_t handle;
+ uint32_t tiling_mode;
+ uint32_t swizzle_mode;
+ uint32_t phys_swizzle_mode;
+ } arg = {
+ .handle = handle,
+ };
+#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_GET_TILING2 DRM_IOWR (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_GET_TILING, struct
Can't we rely on this being in system headers by now?
drm_i915_gem_get_tiling2)
+
+ if (igt_ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_GET_TILING2, &arg))
+ return false;
+
+ return arg.phys_swizzle_mode == arg.swizzle_mode;
+}
+
igt_main
{
uint32_t tiling_mode = I915_TILING_X;
@@ -271,6 +289,12 @@ igt_main
&tiling_mode, &scratch_pitch, 0);
igt_assert(tiling_mode == I915_TILING_X);
igt_assert(scratch_pitch == 4096);
+
+ /*
+ * As we want to compare our template tiled pattern against
+ * the target bo, we need consistent swizzling on both.
+ */
+ igt_require(known_swizzling(scratch_bo->handle));
staging_bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc(bufmgr, "staging bo", BO_SIZE, 4096);
tiled_staging_bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(bufmgr, "scratch bo", 1024,
BO_SIZE/4096, 4,
Another option could be to keep allocating until we found one in the
memory area with compatible swizzling? Like this it may be some noise in
the test pass<->skip transitions.
It depends on physical layout which the kernel keeps hidden (for
understandable reasons).
Yeah, but we could allocate more and more until we end up in the area
where args.phys_swizzle_mode == args.swizzle_mode. Might be to heavy
approach. But then this skip can be random depending on what physical
memory gets allocated in each test run.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
