Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-16 15:59:38) > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-16 15:53:40) > > > > On 16/04/2019 15:17, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-16 15:10:25) > > >> > > >> On 16/04/2019 14:14, Chris Wilson wrote: > > >>> Read the engine workarounds back using the GPU after loading the initial > > >>> context state to verify that we are setting them correctly, and bail if > > >>> it fails. > > >>> > > >>> v2: Break out the verification into its own loop > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Now we just have to decide what to do about the +47 icl failures :) > > > (Or however many it is this time.) > > > > I am hardly keeping pace with your patches, let alone looking at the CI > > results. :I > > > > I see BAT success - where to see the failures and what is failing? > > Wait for the shards. BAT just happens to have machines that work! > In the shards we have about a 30% chance (at the last count) of any test > that reloads the module to trigger a warning. With the -EIO if the intel_engines_verify_workaround() failed, we scored over 500 changes/failures :) With a whole boatload of tests still trying to use the GPU even when wedged. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
