On Sun, 2019-11-24 at 11:27 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The implicit soft-pinning we use to probe the vm layout using
> execbuf,
> depends on the batch remaining active (not retired) between execbufs.
> Naturally, if the background retire worker runs the batch is retired
> and
> the implicit soft-pinning is free to use a fresh address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
> index bd1ee3996..63e0db38d 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ static void test_vm(int i915)
> .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_VM,
> };
> uint32_t parent, child;
> + igt_spin_t *spin;
>
> /*
> * Proving 2 contexts share the same GTT is quite tricky as we
> have no
> @@ -177,6 +178,15 @@ static void test_vm(int i915)
> parent = gem_context_create(i915);
> child = gem_context_create(i915);
>
> + /* Create a background spinner to keep the engines busy */
> + spin = igt_spin_new(i915);
> + for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
Why 16 here?
> + spin->execbuf.rsvd1 = gem_context_create(i915);
> + gem_context_set_priority(i915, spin->execbuf.rsvd1,
> 1023);
Can you make this 1023 a macro?
Thanks,
Stuart
> + gem_execbuf(i915, &spin->execbuf);
> + gem_context_destroy(i915, spin->execbuf.rsvd1);
> + }
> +
> /* Using implicit soft-pinning */
> eb.rsvd1 = parent;
> batch.offset = nonzero_offset;
> @@ -226,6 +236,7 @@ static void test_vm(int i915)
> gem_context_destroy(i915, child);
> gem_vm_destroy(i915, arg.value);
>
> + igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
> gem_sync(i915, batch.handle);
> gem_close(i915, batch.handle);
> }
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
