On 25/02/2020 18:11, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-02-25 18:08:14)
On 24/02/2020 21:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
Check that if we have to remove a hostile request from a non-persistent
context, we do so without harming any other concurrent users.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
+ /* All other spinners should be left unharmed */
+ gem_quiescent_gpu(i915);
+ igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_wait(fence, reset_timeout_ms), 0);
+ igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(fence), 1);
I don't quite get this test. Why would other spinners be unharmed? They
are non-preemptible as well. And non-persistent spinner is alone on the
engine. So what aspect you wanted to test?
Per-engine reset. Termination of the non-persistent context should be
clean and precise, we don't allow creation of non-persistent contexts
unless we have that level of surgical precision. Otherwise it becomes a
new attack vector.
If it is just engine reset then it does what it says on the tin.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
