Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-26 16:58:05) > > On 26/05/2020 15:17, Chris Wilson wrote: > > The kernel no longer uses semaphores between engines, unless it can do > > so by preempting them with timeslices. Update the semaphore-busy to only > > run when we expect semaphore usage, i.e. not on bdw/bsw. > > > > Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1939 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/perf_pmu.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/perf_pmu.c b/tests/perf_pmu.c > > index e54a0d47e..e80f730cf 100644 > > --- a/tests/perf_pmu.c > > +++ b/tests/perf_pmu.c > > @@ -822,6 +822,7 @@ sema_busy(int gem_fd, > > int fd; > > > > igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_semaphores(gem_fd)); > > + igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_preemption(gem_fd)); > > > > fd = open_group(gem_fd, > > I915_PMU_ENGINE_SEMA(e->class, e->instance), -1); > > > > Test with perhaps too intimate knowledge of i915.. iirc, part of the intent of the test was to understand how the kernel's choice of inter-engine sync would show up in the pmu. The challenge we have is in declaring the expected outcomes, that requires intimate knowledge of what the kernel might decide to do. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
