Re: [PATCH i-g-t v3 5/6] tests/gem_scheduler: Add subtests to test batch priority behaviour

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/03/16 11:03, Derek Morton wrote:
> Add subtests to test each ring to check batch buffers of a higher
> priority will be executed before batch buffers of a lower priority.
>
> v2: Addressed review comments from Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Morton <derek.j.morton@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   tests/gem_scheduler.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_scheduler.c b/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> index 436440a..126ee97 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@
>   
>   IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Check scheduler behaviour. Basic tests ensure independant "
>                        "batch buffers of the same priority are executed in "
> -                     "submission order. Read-read tests ensure "
> +                     "submission order. Priority tests ensure higher priority "
> +                     "batch buffers are executed first. Read-read tests ensure "
>                        "batch buffers with a read dependency to the same buffer "
>                        "object do not block each other. Write-write dependency "
>                        "tests ensure batch buffers with a write dependency to a "
> @@ -136,11 +137,23 @@ static void init_context(int *fd, drm_intel_bufmgr **bufmgr, int ringid)
>   	intel_batchbuffer_free(noop_bb);
>   }
>   
> -/* Basic test. Check batch buffers of the same priority and with no dependencies
> - * are executed in the order they are submitted.
> +static void set_priority(int fd, int value)
> +{
> +	struct local_i915_gem_context_param param;
> +	param.context = 0; /* Default context */
> +	param.size = 0;
> +	param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> +	param.value = (uint64_t)value;
> +	gem_context_set_param(fd, &param);
> +}
> +
> +/* If 'priority' is 0, check batch buffers of the same priority and with
> + * no dependencies are executed in the order they are submitted.
> + * If 'priority' is set !0, check batch buffers of higher priority are
> + * executed before batch buffers of lower priority.
>    */
>   #define NBR_BASIC_FDs (3)
> -static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
> +static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid, int priority)
>   {
>   	int fd[NBR_BASIC_FDs];
>   	int loop;
> @@ -160,6 +173,13 @@ static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
>   	for(loop=0; loop < NBR_BASIC_FDs; loop++)
>   		init_context(&(fd[loop]), &(bufmgr[loop]), ringid);
>   
> +	/* For high priority set priority of second context to overtake first
> +	 * For low priority set priority of first context to be overtaxen by second
> +	 */
> +	if(priority > 0)
> +		set_priority(fd[2], priority);
> +	else if(priority < 0)
> +		set_priority(fd[1], priority);
>   
>   	/* Create buffer objects */
>   	delay_bo = create_and_check_bo(bufmgr[0], "delay bo");
> @@ -209,9 +229,14 @@ static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
>   	igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(delay_buf[2], ts1_buf[0]),
>   	             "Delay ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
>   	             delay_buf[2], ts1_buf[0]);
> -	igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]),
> -	             "TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS2 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
> -	             ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]);
> +	if(priority)
> +		igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts2_buf[0], ts1_buf[0]),
> +		             "TS2 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
> +		             ts2_buf[0], ts1_buf[0]);
> +	else
> +		igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]),
> +		             "TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS2 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
> +		             ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]);
>   
>   	/* Cleanup */
>   	for(loop = 0; loop < in_flight; loop++)
> @@ -438,7 +463,19 @@ igt_main
>   	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)
>   		igt_subtest_f("%s-basic", rings[loop].name) {
>   			gem_require_ring(fd, rings[loop].id);
> -			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id);
> +			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id, false);
> +		}
> +
> +	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)
> +		igt_subtest_f("%s-priority-high", rings[loop].name) {
> +			gem_require_ring(fd, rings[loop].id);
> +			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id, 1000);

1000 is a very high priority and it could cause a preemption (when the 
support lands). That shouldn't fail the test because the second batch 
will still overtake the first one but we might end up testing a 
different scenario that the one we're trying to test here, so we could 
use a smaller priority value here and use 1000+ in future preemption 
specific tests.

Regards,
Daniele

> +		}
> +
> +	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)
> +		igt_subtest_f("%s-priority-low", rings[loop].name) {
> +			gem_require_ring(fd, rings[loop].id);
> +			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id, -1000);
>   		}
>   
>   	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx