On 14/08/2018 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-08-14 16:21:08)
On 14/08/2018 16:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-08-14 16:05:13)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Notice in more places if we are running behind.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
benchmarks/gem_wsim.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c b/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
index 80f180829241..ead91b0f009b 100644
--- a/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
+++ b/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
@@ -1718,6 +1718,21 @@ static bool sync_deps(struct workload *wrk, struct w_step *w)
return synced;
}
+static unsigned int measured_usleep(unsigned int usec)
+{
+ struct timespec ts = { };
+ unsigned int slept;
+
+ slept = igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts);
+ igt_assert(slept == 0);
+ do {
+ usleep(usec - slept);
+ slept = igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts) / 1000;
+ } while (slept < usec);
+
+ return igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts);
+}
+
static void *run_workload(void *data)
{
struct workload *wrk = (struct workload *)data;
@@ -1739,7 +1754,7 @@ static void *run_workload(void *data)
count++) {
unsigned int cur_seqno = wrk->sync_seqno;
- clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &wrk->repeat_start);
+ igt_gettime(&wrk->repeat_start);
Were you already linking against libigt?
This code is not set up to hit an igt_assert()...
This code meaning gem_wsim? There's a lot of asserts in it already, and
when they trigger traceback looks fine. What do you think is missing?
We have different values of fine ;) Looks nothing but a mess for me.
I don't think igt itself has much value outside of being the test
runner, we've baked too much knowledge of it being a test harness into
the code (and in many cases work to reduce those assumptions). I'd
rather libigtcore be distinct and not bring in the interlinked
igt_subtest+igt_assert.
To not use it is to reimplement existing handy helpers - not ideal.
To split the test bits from useful helpers sounds like quite a task.
To wean gem_wsim off most igt_ stuff needs decision to be made on the
former - what is core api, and what is test related.
To me problems outweigh the benefit. :( If gem_wsim was under tools,
like intel_gpu_top, then yeah, it would be justifiable. Since it is in
benchmarks I don't think we should bother.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
