On 11/1/2022 08:27, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:24:40 -0700, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Guc submission imposes new range limits on certain scheduling
parameters. The idempotent sections of the timeslice duration and
pre-emption timeout tests was exceeding those limits and so would fail.
Reduce the excessively large value (654s) to one which does not
overflow (54s). Also add an assert that the write of the new value
actually succeeds.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/sysfs_preempt_timeout.c | 4 ++--
tests/i915/sysfs_timeslice_duration.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/sysfs_preempt_timeout.c b/tests/i915/sysfs_preempt_timeout.c
index 515038281638..5e0a7d96299f 100644
--- a/tests/i915/sysfs_preempt_timeout.c
+++ b/tests/i915/sysfs_preempt_timeout.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static void set_preempt_timeout(int engine, unsigned int value)
{
unsigned int delay;
- igt_sysfs_printf(engine, ATTR, "%u", value);
+ igt_assert_lte(0, igt_sysfs_printf(engine, ATTR, "%u", value));
igt_sysfs_scanf(engine, ATTR, "%u", &delay);
igt_assert_eq(delay, value);
}
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int wait_for_reset(int fence)
static void test_idempotent(int i915, int engine)
{
- unsigned int delays[] = { 0, 1, 1000, 1234, 654321 };
+ unsigned int delays[] = { 0, 1, 1000, 1234, 54321 };
By way of documenting the difference between GuC and execlists, I think we
should use gem_using_guc_submission and define two different arrays, one
for execlists and the other for GuC?
I really don't think it is worth the effort. Is execlist mode ever going
to genuinely want an pre-emption timeout or execution quantum of 654s?
And note that this test is not actually testing the behaviour with those
values. It merely tests that it can set the value. There are other
behavioural tests and they max out at 0.5s. So I don't see any benefit
to adding in the extra complexity to verify that a certain range of
values passes on execlist but fails on GuC.
We could of course go the extra yard and check for errors with excessively
large values but I'm not sure if that's worth it so am ok if we skip that
at this point. Or that's a later patch.
The 'invalid' test already puts in 'excessively large' values and checks
that they are rejected.
John.
Below too.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
unsigned int saved;
/* Quick test that store/show reports the same values */
diff --git a/tests/i915/sysfs_timeslice_duration.c b/tests/i915/sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
index 8a2f1c2f2ece..95dc377785a5 100644
--- a/tests/i915/sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
+++ b/tests/i915/sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static void set_timeslice(int engine, unsigned int value)
{
unsigned int delay;
- igt_sysfs_printf(engine, ATTR, "%u", value);
+ igt_assert_lte(0, igt_sysfs_printf(engine, ATTR, "%u", value));
igt_sysfs_scanf(engine, ATTR, "%u", &delay);
igt_assert_eq(delay, value);
}
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static int wait_for_reset(int fence)
static void test_idempotent(int i915, int engine)
{
- const unsigned int delays[] = { 0, 1, 1234, 654321 };
+ const unsigned int delays[] = { 0, 1, 1234, 54321 };
unsigned int saved;
/* Quick test to verify the kernel reports the same values as we write */
--
2.37.3
