On 9/3/2015 5:13 PM, daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
2 subparts of gem_bad_reloc check that the reloc address is below the
global gtt boundary. However, when executing from ppgtt the reloc
address can be greater than that and still be a valid address.
To be sure that we're using the right upper limit, select it based on
the ppgtt mode.
Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Yes, we need this, specially when we use top-down allocation.
(you could use %'lld to add thousand separators into these long long
outputs).
Reviewed-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/gem_bad_reloc.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c b/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
index 563571e..d2e0b70 100644
--- a/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
+++ b/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
@@ -44,6 +44,32 @@ IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Simulates SNA behaviour using negative self-relocations"
#define USE_LUT (1 << 12)
+static uint64_t get_page_table_size(int fd)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_getparam gp;
+ int val = 0;
+
+ memset(&gp, 0, sizeof(gp));
+ gp.param = 18; /* HAS_ALIASING_PPGTT */
+ gp.value = &val;
+
+ if (drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp))
+ return 0;
+ errno = 0;
+
+ switch (val) {
+ case 0:
+ case 1:
+ return gem_aperture_size(fd);
+ case 2:
+ return 1ULL << 32;
+ case 3:
+ return 1ULL << 48;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
/* Simulates SNA behaviour using negative self-relocations for
* STATE_BASE_ADDRESS command packets. If they wrap around (to values greater
* than the total size of the GTT), the GPU will hang.
@@ -54,7 +80,7 @@ static int negative_reloc(int fd, unsigned flags)
struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 gem_exec[2];
struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry gem_reloc[1000];
- uint64_t gtt_max = gem_aperture_size(fd);
+ uint64_t gtt_max = get_page_table_size(fd);
uint32_t buf[1024] = {MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END};
int i;
@@ -86,7 +112,7 @@ static int negative_reloc(int fd, unsigned flags)
&execbuf));
gem_close(fd, gem_exec[1].handle);
- igt_info("Found offset %ld for 4k batch\n", (long)gem_exec[0].offset);
+ igt_info("Found offset %lld for 4k batch\n", (long long)gem_exec[0].offset);
/*
* Ideally we'd like to be able to control where the kernel is going to
* place the buffer. We don't SKIP here because it causes the test
@@ -114,7 +140,7 @@ static int negative_reloc(int fd, unsigned flags)
DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2,
&execbuf));
- igt_info("Batch is now at offset %ld\n", (long)gem_exec[0].offset);
+ igt_info("Batch is now at offset %lld\n", (long long)gem_exec[0].offset);
gem_read(fd, gem_exec[0].handle, 0, buf, sizeof(buf));
gem_close(fd, gem_exec[0].handle);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
