On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:13:28PM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
Commit a355b2d6eb42 ("igt/gem_exec_reloc: Filter out unavailable
addresses for !ppgtt") introduced filtering of addresses possibly
occupied by other users of shared GTT. Unfortunately, that filtering
doesn't distinguish between actually occupied addresses and otherwise
invalid softpin offsets. If incorrect GTT alignment will be assumed
when running on future backends with possibly larger minimum page
sizes, a half of calculated offsets to be tested will be incorrectly
detected as occupied by other users and silently skipped instead of
reported as a problem. That will significantly distort the intended
test pattern.
Filter out failing addresses only if reported as occupied.
v2: Skip unavailable addresses only when not running on full PPGTT.
v3: Replace the not on full PPGTT requirement for skipping with error
code checking.
v4: Silently skip only those offsets which have been explicitly
reported as overlapping with shared GTT reserved space, not simply
all which raise failures other than -EINVAL (Chris),
- as an implementation of moving the probe out of line so it's not
easily confused with the central point of the test (Chris), use
object validation library helper just introduced.
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/gem_exec_reloc.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_reloc.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_reloc.c
index fdd9661d..e46a4df7 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_reloc.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_reloc.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include "igt.h"
#include "igt_dummyload.h"
+#include "i915/gem_gtt_topology.c"
IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Basic sanity check of execbuf-ioctl relocations.");
@@ -520,7 +521,7 @@ static void basic_range(int fd, unsigned flags)
uint64_t gtt_size = gem_aperture_size(fd);
const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
igt_spin_t *spin = NULL;
- int count, n;
+ int count, n, err;
igt_require(gem_has_softpin(fd));
@@ -539,11 +540,12 @@ static void basic_range(int fd, unsigned flags)
obj[n].offset = (1ull << (i + 12)) - 4096;
obj[n].offset = gen8_canonical_address(obj[n].offset);
obj[n].flags = EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED | EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS;
- gem_write(fd, obj[n].handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
- execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj[n]);
- execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
- if (__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))
+ err = gem_gtt_validate_object(fd, &obj[n]);
Would it be better to name this function as
gem_gtt_validate_object_offset? From the earlier code is it was easy to
see that the intention of the test was to use gem_execbuf to map the
object to the offset. From the new method name unless I check the code
it's not straight forward that we are just checking the offset.
+ if (err) {
+ /* Iff using a shared GTT, some of it may be reserved */
Nit-pick: If, not Iff
+ igt_assert_eq(err, -ENOSPC);
continue;
+ }
igt_debug("obj[%d] handle=%d, address=%llx\n",
n, obj[n].handle, (long long)obj[n].offset);
@@ -559,11 +561,12 @@ static void basic_range(int fd, unsigned flags)
obj[n].offset = 1ull << (i + 12);
obj[n].offset = gen8_canonical_address(obj[n].offset);
obj[n].flags = EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED | EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS;
- gem_write(fd, obj[n].handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
- execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj[n]);
- execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
- if (__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))
+ err = gem_gtt_validate_object(fd, &obj[n]);
+ if (err) {
+ /* Iff using a shared GTT, some of it may be reserved */
Nit-pick: If, not Iff
+ igt_assert_eq(err, -ENOSPC);
continue;
+ }
igt_debug("obj[%d] handle=%d, address=%llx\n",
n, obj[n].handle, (long long)obj[n].offset);
--
Other than the above comments, looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshidhar.r.konda@xxxxxxxxx>
Vanshi
2.21.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
