Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-08-12 12:52:56) > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Be a little more conservative in our ring measurement and exclude one > > batch to leave room in case our user needs to wrap (where a request will > > be expanded to cover the unused space at the end of the ring). > > > > did read the wrapping part and that seems to be the case that > we enlarge the wrapping request. > > However do we lose some coverage on the actual wrap tests? There's only one with that idea in mind, gem_ringfill(). Which is already "broken" because it assumes that all engines have the same ring size, so we will be underfilling most. Could also do with an ALL_ENGINES mode. There's nothing that explicitly tries to hit all the possible ways in which ring wrapping occurs, it tends to fallout of faux-stress tests like gem_exec_parallel or gem_ctx_create. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
