On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:31:01AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On 08/14/2015 05:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 01:31:30PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >> Need some LRC tests in the 'basic' subset, and this is a good simple > >> one. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is just a testcase for a very specific lrc corner case. We do already > > exercise lrc with all the other execbuf testcases. Imo we're covered > > enough already with what we have in the basic testset - testing for all 3 > > billion cornercases will make it grow out of scope I fear. I'd just drop > > this one here as not needed for BAT. > > > > If you want to extend execbuffer scope a bit then we should add a > > concurrency test, i.e. one of the gem_concurrent_blt testcases as basic > > ones. Unfortunately to be able to reliable trigger race conditions those > > all take a few seconds. But inter-batch sync is a _big_ gap across all > > archs, and something which is even more tricky with lrc (and scheduler). > > Imo that would be a lot more useful than this test here. > > Yeah that's a good point; I just saw 'lrc' and though "I want that", but > you're right we should already be covered. Definitely open to adding > some concurrency stuff (maybe just a few seconds worth) as we get things > in place. For concurrency mabye we can do that in a 2nd round - we need to go over gem_concurrent_* anyway and reshuffle that one into basic, full and subtests that we're only going to expose through cmdline options for manual testing. Atm there's way too many of those tests. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
