On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:01:19PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > Ah right, I missed that, thanks for explaining. But we still need to > make sure the device is suspended before the set-cache-level call, that > is an initial disable_all_screens() and then wait_for_suspended() > before calling set-cache-level. To me it would be clearer then to split it up into a disable_all_screens() before the loop and wait_for_suspend() inside before the second set-cache, and drop the enable_one_screen(). (That way the test is focusing on the set-cache-level itself and not confusing the reader/coverage with the display power blocks). You also want the wait_for_suspended() before the memset, to ensure the fault handler is also rpm away, but that is checked elsewhere so not essential. Hmm, this file has a noticeable lack of GEM domain management. E.g. gem_mmap_subtest() will only work by happenstance on !llc with gtt_mmap=false. To test the shrinker and eviction code, you can use i915_drop_caches. First populate the GGTT using a GTT mmap, then igt_drop_caches_set(DROP_BOUND); (Unbind looks best to be exercised through gem_close, though adding DROP_EVICT_GGTT seems sane). I don't see how you detect the number of illegal accesses whilst suspended? Should we not have a counter exposed through debugfs? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
