On 14/10/2019 10:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
Check the logical ring context by asserting that the registers hold
expected start during execution. (It's a bit chicken-and-egg for how
could we manage to execute our request if the registers were not being
updated. Still, it's nice to verify that the HW is working as expected.)
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 126 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
index a691e429ca01..0aa36b1b2389 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
@@ -2599,10 +2599,136 @@ static int live_lrc_layout(void *arg)
return err;
}
+static int __live_lrc_state(struct i915_gem_context *fixme,
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
+ struct i915_vma *scratch)
+{
+ struct intel_context *ce;
+ struct i915_request *rq;
+ enum {
+ RING_START_IDX = 0,
+ RING_TAIL_IDX,
+ MAX_IDX
+ };
+ u32 expected[MAX_IDX];
+ u32 *cs;
+ int err;
+ int n;
+
+ ce = intel_context_create(fixme, engine);
Calling the context fixme imo just makes the code less readable.
+ if (IS_ERR(ce))
+ return PTR_ERR(ce);
+
+ err = intel_context_pin(ce);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_put;
+
+ rq = i915_request_create(ce);
+ if (IS_ERR(rq)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(rq);
+ goto err_unpin;
+ }
+
+ cs = intel_ring_begin(rq, 4 * MAX_IDX);
+ if (IS_ERR(cs)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(cs);
+ i915_request_add(rq);
+ goto err_unpin;
+ }
+
+ *cs++ = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM_GEN8 | MI_USE_GGTT;
+ *cs++ = i915_mmio_reg_offset(RING_START(engine->mmio_base));
+ *cs++ = i915_ggtt_offset(scratch) + RING_START_IDX * sizeof(u32);
+ *cs++ = 0;
+
+ expected[RING_START_IDX] = i915_ggtt_offset(ce->ring->vma);
+
+ *cs++ = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM_GEN8 | MI_USE_GGTT;
+ *cs++ = i915_mmio_reg_offset(RING_TAIL(engine->mmio_base));
+ *cs++ = i915_ggtt_offset(scratch) + RING_TAIL_IDX * sizeof(u32);
+ *cs++ = 0;
+
+ i915_request_get(rq);
+ i915_request_add(rq);
+
+ intel_engine_flush_submission(engine);
+ expected[RING_TAIL_IDX] = ce->ring->tail;
+
+ if (i915_request_wait(rq, 0, HZ / 5) < 0) {
+ err = -ETIME;
+ goto err_rq;
+ }
+
+ cs = i915_gem_object_pin_map(scratch->obj, I915_MAP_WB);
+ if (IS_ERR(cs)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(cs);
+ goto err_rq;
+ }
+
+ for (n = 0; n < MAX_IDX; n++) {
+ if (cs[n] != expected[n]) {
+ pr_err("%s: Stored register[%d] value[0x%x] did not match expected[0x%x]\n",
+ engine->name, n, cs[n], expected[n]);
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_map(scratch->obj);
+
+err_rq:
+ i915_request_put(rq);
+err_unpin:
+ intel_context_unpin(ce);
+err_put:
+ intel_context_put(ce);
+ return err;
+}
+
+static int live_lrc_state(void *arg)
+{
+ struct intel_gt *gt = arg;
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
+ struct i915_gem_context *fixme;
+ struct i915_vma *scratch;
+ enum intel_engine_id id;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * Check the live register state matches what we expect for this
+ * intel_context.
+ */
+
+ fixme = kernel_context(gt->i915);
+ if (!fixme)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ scratch = create_scratch(gt);
+ if (IS_ERR(scratch)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(scratch);
+ goto out_close;
+ }
+
+ for_each_engine(engine, gt->i915, id) {
+ err = __live_lrc_state(fixme, engine, scratch);
+ if (err)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (igt_flush_test(gt->i915))
+ err = -EIO;
+
+ i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&scratch, 0);
+out_close:
+ kernel_context_close(fixme);
+ return err;
+}
+
int intel_lrc_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
static const struct i915_subtest tests[] = {
SUBTEST(live_lrc_layout),
+ SUBTEST(live_lrc_state),
};
if (!HAS_LOGICAL_RING_CONTEXTS(i915))
I don't know.. guess it has some extra value compared to basic MI_NOOP
tests.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
