Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-20 12:55:42) > > On 20/11/2019 09:32, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Bonded request submission is designed to allow requests to execute in > > parallel as laid out by the user. If the master request is already > > finished before its bonded pair is submitted, the pair were not destined > > to run in parallel and we lose the information about the master engine > > to dictate selection of the secondary. If the second request was > > required to be run on a particular engine in a virtual set, that should > > have been specified, rather than left to the whims of a random > > unconnected requests! > > > > In the selftest, I made the mistake of not ensuring the master would > > overlap with its bonded pairs, meaning that it could indeed complete > > before we submitted the bonds. Those bonds were then free to select any > > available engine in their virtual set, and not the one expected by the > > test. > > There is a submit await which ensures master is not runnable before > bonded pairs are submitted. Why was that not enough? Are the sporadic > test failures? One test is using the submit_await, the other does not. It takes the background retire worker to run as we are submitting the secondaries... But I have not noticed this failure before hooking up retirement to process_csb. However, the issue is definitely present in the current test. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
