Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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) > > Not great, but nowhere near as bad as icl, > single forked > glk: 2.15s 2.89s > icl: 2.50s 281.08s > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110882 > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Martin Peres <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/i915/gem_mmap_gtt.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_mmap_gtt.c b/tests/i915/gem_mmap_gtt.c > index ac439cdf8..e2c6ad9a0 100644 > --- a/tests/i915/gem_mmap_gtt.c > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_mmap_gtt.c > @@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ test_huge_copy(int fd, int huge, int tiling_a, int tiling_b, int ncpus) > uint64_t huge_object_size, i; > unsigned mode = CHECK_RAM; > > - igt_fail_on_f(intel_gen(devid) >= 11 && ncpus > 1, > + igt_fail_on_f(intel_gen(devid) == 11 && ncpus > 1, > "Please adjust your expectations, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110882\n"); It seems to be still exponential so how about, if (intel_gen(devid) >= 11) ncpus = max(2, (ncpus-1)/2); Would drop the medium-odd to 14 seconds, without huge dent in coverage as as odd number of cpus would be bouncing on it? -Mika > > switch (huge) { > -- > 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx