Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-10 18:41:22)
>
>
> On 10/08/18 04:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Normally we wait on the last request, but that overlooks any
> > difficulties in waiting on a request while the next is being qeued.
>
> /s/qeued/queued
>
> > Check those.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/gem_sync.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_sync.c b/tests/gem_sync.c
> > index c697220ad..fb209977d 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_sync.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_sync.c
> > @@ -294,6 +294,74 @@ wakeup_ring(int fd, unsigned ring, int timeout, int wlen)
> > igt_assert_eq(intel_detect_and_clear_missed_interrupts(fd), 0);
> > }
> >
>
> > + intel_detect_and_clear_missed_interrupts(fd);
> > + igt_fork(child, num_engines) {
> > + double start, end, elapsed;
> > + unsigned long cycles;
> > + igt_spin_t *spin[2];
> > + uint32_t cmd;
> > +
> > + spin[0] = __igt_spin_batch_new(fd,
> > + .engine = ring,
> > + .flags = IGT_SPIN_FAST);
> > + cmd = *spin[0]->batch;
> > +
> > + spin[1] = __igt_spin_batch_new(fd,
> > + .engine = ring,
> > + .flags = IGT_SPIN_FAST);
> > + igt_assert(*spin[1]->batch == cmd);
> > +
> > + start = gettime();
> > + end = start + timeout;
> > + cycles = 0;
> > + do {
> > + for (int loop = 0; loop < 1024; loop++) {
> > + igt_spin_t *s = spin[loop & 1];
> > +
> > + igt_spin_batch_end(s);
> > + gem_sync(fd, s->handle);
>
> How does the test fail if the sync goes wrong? Hang detector on the
> queued batch?
We have a hang detector for both missed wakeups and GPU hangs. As tests
goes it's fairly tame, but in essence this entire file is about trying
to trick the HW+driver into not sending an interrupt back to userspace.
Just a very narrow stress test, over and over again from slightly
different angles.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
