Quoting Martin Peres (2019-09-17 12:37:25) > > > On 17/09/2019 14:23, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Tigerlake does not seem to be suffering from the same fault as Icelake > > did, so let the tests run as they should complete within the timeout. > > > > Early tgl results: > > > > basic-small-copy: SUCCESS (1,671s) > > forked-basic-small-copy: SUCCESS (37,568s) > > > > medium-copy: SUCCESS (3,307s) > > forked-medium-copy: SUCCESS (76,614s) > > forked-medium-copy-XY: SUCCESS (203,251s) > > forked-medium-copy-odd: SUCCESS (204,265s) > > Thanks for checking this out! > > 3 minutes for a subtest is still an eternity... How much lost coverage > would it be if we did not execute the non-small forked test? The others check out the partial fencing, which in theory is checked extensively in the selftests (live_mman). It shouldn't be an issue, but it was the forked-medium-copy that hit the timeout and so warned us about icl. ~o~ * starts playing on his tiny fiddle to the tune of EzBench -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
