Give a small bump for our tolerance on comparing the expected vs measured clock ticks/time from 10% to 12.5% to accommodate a bad result on Sandybridge that was off by 10.3%. Hopefully, that is the worst we will see. Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1802 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c index 181b29fa5b58..48f954ac4f2c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c @@ -312,15 +312,15 @@ int live_rps_clock_interval(void *arg) engine->name, cycles, time, ktime_to_ns(dt), expected, gt->clock_frequency / 1000); - if (10 * time < 9 * ktime_to_ns(dt) || - 10 * time > 11 * ktime_to_ns(dt)) { + if (10 * time < 8 * ktime_to_ns(dt) || + 8 * time > 10 * ktime_to_ns(dt)) { pr_err("%s: rps clock time does not match walltime!\n", engine->name); err = -EINVAL; } - if (10 * expected < 9 * cycles || - 10 * expected > 11 * cycles) { + if (10 * expected < 8 * cycles || + 8 * expected > 10 * cycles) { pr_err("%s: walltime does not match rps clock ticks!\n", engine->name); err = -EINVAL; -- 2.20.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
