On 11/02/2019 14:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
basic-allocations was written to demonstrate a flaw in our continual
reallocation of cmdparser shadow bo, largely fixed by keeping a small
cache of bo of different lengths (to speed up the search for the correct
sized bo). We only care enough to exercise the slowdown by submitting
lots of execbufs, and can see the effect of bo caching on the rate, so
replace the fixed number of iterations with a timeout and count how many
batches we could submit instead.
Similarly, we now do not need to wait for all of our queue to complete
as we can tell the kernel to drop the queue instead.
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107936
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/gem_exec_parse.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_parse.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_parse.c
index b653b1bdc..62e8d0a51 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_parse.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_parse.c
@@ -303,15 +303,15 @@ test_lri(int fd, uint32_t handle, struct test_lri *test)
static void test_allocations(int fd)
{
- uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
+ const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[17];
- int i, j;
+ unsigned long count;
intel_require_memory(2, 1ull<<(12 + ARRAY_SIZE(obj)), CHECK_RAM);
memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj));
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(obj); i++) {
+ for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(obj); i++) {
uint64_t size = 1ull << (12 + i);
obj[i].handle = gem_create(fd, size);
@@ -322,17 +322,21 @@ static void test_allocations(int fd)
memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf));
execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
- for (j = 0; j < 16384; j++) {
- igt_progress("allocations ", j, 16384);
- i = rand() % ARRAY_SIZE(obj);
+
+ count = 0;
+ igt_until_timeout(20) {
+ int i = rand() % ARRAY_SIZE(obj);
execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj[i]);
execbuf.batch_start_offset = (rand() % (1ull<<i)) << 12;
execbuf.batch_start_offset += 64 * (rand() % 64);
execbuf.batch_len = (1ull<<(12+i)) - execbuf.batch_start_offset;
gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+ count++;
}
+ igt_info("Submitted %lu execbufs\n", count);
+ igt_drop_caches_set(fd, DROP_RESET_ACTIVE); /* Cancel the queued work */
Downside here is that tests start to exercise a lot more driver paths.
Or is that an upside? It's confusing these days.
I'd prefer if we just let it run and don't involve wedge/unwedge. Well
actually... we could modify the submit loop to sync a bit rather than
build a queue for 20 seconds? Would sync after each execbuf be
detrimental to test goals? Alternatively submit maybe ARRAY_SIZE worth
and then sync?
Regards,
Tvrtko
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(obj); i++) {
+ for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(obj); i++) {
gem_sync(fd, obj[i].handle);
gem_close(fd, obj[i].handle);
}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
