On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:00:44AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:54:47AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:18:35PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > igt likes to inject GPU hangs into its command streams. However, as we > > > expect these hangs, we don't actually want them recorded in the dmesg > > > output or stored in the i915_error_state (usually). To accomodate this > > > allow userspace to set a flag on the context that any hang emanating > > > from that context will not be recorded. We still do the error capture > > > (otherwise how do we find the guilty context and know its intent?) as > > > part of the reason for random GPU hang injection is to exercise the race > > > conditions between the error capture and normal execution. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hm, I do like that we exercise the full paths all the time, increasing > > chances for fireworks. What's the motivation here? Is there some > > substantial speed-up? > > No, since we keep doing the error-capture (we have to, we haven't fixed > the bugs in it yet!), the only benefits are: > > (a) Reduce dmesg spam during igt > (b) simulating hangs doesn't leave an error-state around, or rather, we > don't leave the simulated error state and igt doesn't eat a *genuine* hang > that occurred during or before the test. Oh, should better wait for coffee to kick in - I didn't realize that all that code still runs, and the only thing that changes is whether we'll store the capture error state in the global slot used by debugfs. Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> -- 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
