> -----Original Message----- > From: Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 4:56 PM > To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx; Intel Graphics Development <intel- > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bhatt, Jigar <jigar.bhatt@xxxxxxxxx>; Gupta, > Anshuman <anshuman.gupta@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for use DYNAMIC_DEBUG to > implement DRM.debug (rev2) > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 03/09/2021 14:01, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 12:29:51PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > > > On 03/09/2021 01:31, jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:38 PM Patchwork > > > > > <patchwork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > <mailto:patchwork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > *Patch Details* > > > > > *Series:* use DYNAMIC_DEBUG to implement DRM.debug (rev2) > > > > > *URL:* https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/93914/ > > > > > <https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/93914/> > > > > > *State:* failure > > > > > *Details:* > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20931/index.html > > > > > > > > > > <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20931/index. > > > > > html> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_10541_full -> > > > > > Patchwork_20931_full > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary > > > > > > > > > > *FAILURE* > > > > > > > > > > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_20931_full > absolutely > > > > > need to be > > > > > verified manually. > > > > > > > > > > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes > > > > > introduced in Patchwork_20931_full, please notify your bug team to > > > > > allow them > > > > > to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives > > > > > in CI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Team ! > > > > > > > > > > I think I need a bit of orientation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible new issues > > > > > > > > > > Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in > > > > > Patchwork_20931_full: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IGT changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible regressions > > > > > > > > > > * igt@gem_exec_schedule@u-submit-golden-slice@vcs0: > > > > > o shard-skl: NOTRUN -> INCOMPLETE > > > > > > > > > > <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20931/shard- > > > > > skl10/igt@gem_exec_schedule@u-submit-golden-slice@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Warnings > > > > > > > > > > * igt@i915_pm_dc@dc9-dpms: > > > > > o shard-skl: SKIP > > > > > <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_10541/shard- > skl6/igt@i915_pm_dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > ([fdo#109271]) -> FAIL I915_pm_dc test failures are not related to your series , probably this failure can be ignored. Br, Anshuman Gupta. > > > > > > > > > > <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20931/shard- > > > > > skl8/igt@i915_pm_dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im assuming the FAIL is the sticking point, > > > > > > > > Both INCOMPLETE and FAIL will cause a failure to be declared, but in this > case it looks to me this series is not at fault. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > The gem_exec_schedule failure looks like a test runner timeout issue (and > apparently test does not handle well running the the fence timeout enabled). > > > > > > > > @Petri - does the below look like IGT runner running our of time > > > > budget for the test run? Would it log > > > > > > > > [1051.943629] [114/138] ( 11s left) gem_exec_schedule > > > > (u-submit-golden-slice) Starting subtest: u-submit-golden-slice > > > > Starting dynamic subtest: rcs0 Dynamic subtest rcs0: SUCCESS > > > > (80.175s) Starting dynamic subtest: bcs0 Dynamic subtest bcs0: > > > > SUCCESS (80.195s) Starting dynamic subtest: vcs0 Dynamic subtest > > > > vcs0: SUCCESS (80.243s) Starting dynamic subtest: vecs0 > > > > > > > > Interesting part is that according to dmesg it never got to the vecs0 > dynamic subtest - any idea what happened there? > > > > > > Yep, we ran out of time. We still had 11 seconds left to execute > > > something but then that test took centuries. > > > > Okay at least that's explained then. > > > > Perhaps could make that act of termination logged in igt_runner log? > > We do log everything we can, but unfortunately this was such an extreme case > that it hit the timeout that just cuts off AC power. > > run.log has this act logged. > > > > > Also, any explanation on why dmesg and igt_runner log disagree on how > > far the test progressed (in terms of which subtest was active when > > things ended)? > > > > Looks like a race condition with the above mentioned AC cutoff. The test printed > that vcs0 is finished and vecs0 starts, that info was printed to igt_runner's > stdout, but the write() to the test logs didn't get called before cutoff. > > > -- > Petri Latvala > > > > Regards, > > > > Tvrtko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > I915_pm_dc I'd say you just gotten unlucky that test went from always > skipping on SKL to trying to run it and then it failed. But I don't know enough > about the test to tell you why. Adding Jigar and Anshuman as test author and > reviewer who might be able to shed some light here. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Tvrtko > > > > > > > > > I found code that seemed to be relevant > > > > > > > > > > [jimc@frodo igt-ci-tags.git]$ git remote -v > > > > > origin https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags.git > > > > > <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags.git> (fetch) > > > > > origin https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags.git > > > > > <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags.git> (push) > > > > > > > > > > I built it, got an error, threw that to google, > > > > > found a patch on i-g-t from > > > > > commit 1ff3e5ae99ceb66d2926d58635d0379ce971065a (HEAD -> > master) > > > > > Author: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > > > > Date: Mon Apr 15 14:57:23 2019 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > and applied it > > > > > it fixed the one problem > > > > > > > > > > then I looked at previous head > > > > > > > > > > commit f052e49a43cc9704ea5f240df15dd9d3dfed68ab (origin/master, > origin/HEAD) > > > > > Author: Simon Ser <simon.ser@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:simon.ser@xxxxxxxxx>> > > > > > Date: Wed Apr 24 19:15:26 2019 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > It sure seems that tree is stale. > > > > > > That tree's master ref does not get updated. It's only for storing tags. > > > > > > That test result comparison was too long to fit into patchwork so the > > > build information at the bottom is missing, but the BAT results have > > > it: > > > > > > IGT_6193: 080869f804cb86b25a38889e5ce9a870571cd8c4 @ > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools.git > > > > > > > > >
