On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0700, bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The size of the batch buffer passed to the kernel is significantly
> larger than the size of the batch buffer passed to the function. A
> proposed optimization as part of the batch copy kernel series is to
> use batch_len for the copy and parse operations, which leads to a
> false "batch without MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END" failure for this test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/gem_exec_parse.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_parse.c b/tests/gem_exec_parse.c
> index 05f271c..568bd4a 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_parse.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_parse.c
> @@ -144,9 +144,10 @@ static void exec_split_batch(int fd, uint32_t *cmds,
> struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objs[1];
> uint32_t cmd_bo;
> uint32_t noop[1024] = { 0 };
> + const int alloc_size = 4096 * 2;
>
> // Allocate and fill a 2-page batch with noops
> - cmd_bo = gem_create(fd, 4096 * 2);
> + cmd_bo = gem_create(fd, alloc_size);
> gem_write(fd, cmd_bo, 0, noop, sizeof(noop));
> gem_write(fd, cmd_bo, 4096, noop, sizeof(noop));
>
> @@ -167,7 +168,7 @@ static void exec_split_batch(int fd, uint32_t *cmds,
> execbuf.buffers_ptr = (uintptr_t)objs;
> execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
> execbuf.batch_start_offset = 0;
Shouldn't we simply adjust batch_start_offset to be 4096-4, i.e. where
we've placed the batch? Would have the benifit of also testing offset
batches ;-)
-Daniel
> - execbuf.batch_len = size;
> + execbuf.batch_len = alloc_size;
> execbuf.cliprects_ptr = 0;
> execbuf.num_cliprects = 0;
> execbuf.DR1 = 0;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
