Not your fault, just exposed under recent testing
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:30:54PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> +int igt_minor_evictions(int fd, struct igt_eviction_test_ops *ops,
> + int surface_size, int nr_surfaces)
> +{
> + uint32_t *bo, *sel;
> + int n, m, pass, fail;
> +
> + igt_require((uint64_t)nr_surfaces * surface_size / (1024 * 1024)
> + < intel_get_total_ram_mb() * 9 / 10);
> +
> + bo = malloc(3*nr_surfaces*sizeof(*bo));
> + igt_assert(bo);
> +
> + for (n = 0; n < 2*nr_surfaces; n++)
> + bo[n] = ops->create(fd, surface_size);
> +
> + sel = bo + n;
> + for (fail = 0, m = 0; fail < 10; fail++) {
> + for (pass = 0; pass < 100; pass++) {
> + for (n = 0; n < nr_surfaces; n++, m += 7)
The issue I found was that I had a nr_surface that was divisible by 7...
So we can either keep a table of prime numbers (may come in useful
elsewhere) and pick the prime closest to nr_surfaces, or we can just
tweak nr_surfaces not to be divisible by 7...
So something like:
/* Fudge to avoid duplicate bo during execbuffer */
nr_surfaces /= 7;
nr_surfaces *= 7;
nr_surfaces += 1;
should paper over the mistake.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
