Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2020-05-19 11:42:45) > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 02:31:02PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Count the number of CS_TIMESTAMP ticks and check that it matches our > > expectations. > > Looks ok for everything except g4x/ilk. Those would need something > like > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/355944/?series=74145&rev=1 > + read TIMESTAMP_UDW instead of TIMESTAMP. > > bw/cl still needs > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/355946/?series=74145&rev=1 > though the test seems a bit flaky on my cl. Sometimes the cycle count > comes up short. Never seen it exceed the expected value, but it can > come up significantly short. And curiously it does seem to have a > tendency to come out as roughly some nice fraction (seen at least > 1/2 and 1/4 quite a few times). Dunno if the tick rate actually > changes due to some unknown circumstances, or if the counter just > updates somehow lazily. Certainly polling the counter over a longer > period does show it to tick at the expected rate. Any guestimate at how short a period is long enough? -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
