Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-02-25 18:18:12) > > 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. I shall update the description to clarify that then :) -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
