On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 04:34:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:43:30PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:55:27AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:30:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > >> > > Pin doesn't fit with PPGTT since the interface doesn't allow for the > >> > > context for which we want to pin. > >> > > >> > Nak. Pin still retains it semantics with the gtt and only applies to the > >> > gtt. > >> > >> > >> Here is the error I have on pin. I was trying to debug it previously but > >> got sidetracked. I thought some combo of EXEC_GTT flag and hacks would > >> make it work, but I never finished. Maybe you know offhand what I've > >> messed up, and the right way to fix it? > >> > >> gem_pin: gem_pin.c:84: exec: Assertion `gem_exec[0].offset == offset' failed. > > > > Ok, that is a condition that no longer holds with full ppgtt. Now > > fortunately, userspace that might depend upon that is limited to DRI1 > > era machines (at least in the userspace I know about) and we can just > > update the test to understand that pinning and exec are two different > > address spaces. > > > > How do you handle EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT? As that may be an acceptable > > w/a. Or just skip that portion of the test if PRAM_HAS_FULL_PPGTT. Soft > > pinning should be tested separately (so that it isn't confused with > > pinning to the ggtt), but that is also a viable solution to this portion > > of the test. > > NEEDS_GTT is only valid where we alias the global GTT and PPGTT (i.e. > snb). So I think we should reject it on other platforms (or silently > ignore it if userspace uses it already). What do you recommend as the resolution to the failing gem_in then? > > Now since we've had a few funny bugs in this area already which proved > to be rather hard to track down I think it's time to implement the > relevant igt tests. The (currently only internal) i-g-t wiki has some > information about what exactly blows up and what I think should be > tested. I think it'd be a good requirement to block the real ppgtt > enabling (not all the vma prep patches) until that test is ready. > I'll take a look on Monday and see try to start on it. I think if the test case is reasonable, then blocking the merge is fair, but I have to see what's in store before I decide whether or not to argue. > On that topic: Do we have other gaps in our testing, or is the current > igt coverage sufficient for this massive refactoring? Ben, has > anything blown up while you've developed these patches which was not > caught by i-g-t? Other than the one bug I haven't yet tracked down which I mentioned in 0000-cover-letter (I've never hit it in many IGT runs), I had one reproducible bug which was really hard to resolve. It passed all of the IGT tests, and caused some weird display corruption in UXA (it was the screenshot I posted, if you recall). It ran fine in SNA for a while, and then would hang. That wasn't even full PPGTT, it was just after the refactor. The root cause was some screwed up unbind logic where I ended up with a bogus unbind offset. In retrospect, I'm not really sure why the issue wasn't either more sever, or less, and also why IGT didn't hit it. It was the kind of bug which I don't feel is worth testing. Since addresses spaces are per fd, any test which opens multiple fds, and executes testable batches is a good test. I'm not really sure how many of them we have offhand, but we have a least a few. I think piglit on a composited desktop is one of the best focus tests we can run. > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
