On 04/01/2015 04:42 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 04:14:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+ /* Re-exec with padding set. */
+ igt_assert(exec(fd, eb_handles, pad_to_size, offsets) == 0);
The crux of the test is that we generate two objects such that
B_offset = A_offset + A_size
and then tell the kernel that A is actually 2*size (A_pad_to_size)
+ if (offsets[1] > offsets[0])
+ distance = offsets[1] - offsets[0];
+ else
+ distance = offsets[0] - offsets[1];
The assertion I feel should only be that
B_offset + B_size <= A_offset && B_offset >= A_offset + A_pad_to_size
I don't get this. B starts after A + padding, but B ends before A?
i.e. that they are now disjoint.
Your test is valid nevertheless, it is the ordering of the objects that
is confusing.
Hmm, can you loop until B_offset == A_offset + A_size such that we don't
have the confusion with order? And even assert that A_offset is
unchanged (though that smells like a little to much internal knowledge
leaking through, it is a desirable property of the allocator though - no
unnecessarily eviction) afterwards.
Do you agree that losing the handling of negative distances will make
the test simpler to understand (at the expense of doing more work in the
setup)?
I thought my test logic is pretty straightforward:
1. Find two objects next to each other.
2. Add padding on the "lower" (addressed) object.
3. Ensure objects are now apart at least what the padding is.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
