Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-19 09:44:18)
>
> On 19/06/2019 09:34, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-19 07:32:05)
> >>
> >> On 18/06/2019 21:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> In order to pin the engine as busy, we have to prevent the kernel from
> >>> executing other independent work ahead of our plug, so tell the spinner
> >>> to not allow preemption.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c | 3 ++-
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> >>> index 3ecade417..d47cbdd7c 100644
> >>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> >>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> >>> @@ -283,7 +283,8 @@ static void execute_one(int i915)
> >>>
> >>> spin = igt_spin_new(i915,
> >>> .ctx = param.ctx_id,
> >>> - .engine = 0);
> >>> + .engine = 0,
> >>> + .flags = IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION);
> >>>
> >>> igt_debug("Testing with map of %d engines\n", i + 1);
> >>> memset(&engines.engines, -1, sizeof(engines.engines));
> >>>
> >>
> >> The no-op batch preempts the spinner? How does that affect the busy
> >> check on the no-op batch?
> >
> > We are checking the second batch in the pipeline, expecting it to be
> > blocked by the already executing spinner on the engine of interest.
> > There is no dependency between the two batches, just order of
> > submission, hence the kernel ends up executing the second no-op batch
> > after the first batch's timeslice expired.
>
> Yes of course.. but even without timeslicing I think we could have this
> assumption spinner plugs in a lot of places.
Yes. In the places where I've thought about this plugging issue, we
issue BIGNUM high priority requests. However, this is the only
consistent failure atm, no doubt more will turn up.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
