On 04/04/18 02:58, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/04/2018 19:34, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
On 03/04/18 11:24, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
On 03/04/18 04:36, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Reset and unwedge stress testing is supposed to trigger wedging or
resets
at incovenient times and then re-use the context so either the
context or
driver tracking might get confused and break.
v2:
* Renamed for more sensible naming.
* Added some comments to explain what the test is doing. (Chris
Wilson)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
---
tests/gem_eio.c | 74
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/gem_eio.c b/tests/gem_eio.c
index b7c5047f0816..9599e73db736 100644
--- a/tests/gem_eio.c
+++ b/tests/gem_eio.c
@@ -591,6 +591,74 @@ static void test_inflight_internal(int fd,
unsigned int wait)
close(fd);
}
+/*
+ * Verify that we can submit and execute work after unwedging the GPU.
+ */
+static void test_reset_stress(int fd, unsigned int flags)
+{
+ uint32_t ctx0 = gem_context_create(fd);
+
+ igt_until_timeout(5) {
+ struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = { };
+ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj = { };
+ uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
+ igt_spin_t *hang;
+ unsigned int i;
+ uint32_t ctx;
+
+ gem_quiescent_gpu(fd);
+
+ igt_require(i915_reset_control(flags & TEST_WEDGE ?
+ false : true));
+
+ ctx = context_create_safe(fd);
+
+ /*
+ * Start executing a spin batch with some queued batches
+ * against a different context after it.
+ */
Aren't all batches queued on ctx0? Or is this a reference to the
check on ctx you have later in the test.
Yes, a mistake in comment text.
+ hang = spin_sync(fd, ctx0, 0);
I think you meant to send this^ on ctx.
Why do you think so? Did you find a different or better way to trigger
the bug this test is trying to hit?
Nope, I just misunderstood the code :). I thought you were creating ctx
as 'safe' to be not 'bannable' because you were going to reuse the same
context across multiple resets and didn't want it to be banned. BTW
given that this is not the case wouldn't ctx0 be banned after so many
resets?
Apologies for the cryptic comment,
Antonio.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Antonio.
+
+ obj.handle = gem_create(fd, 4096);
+ gem_write(fd, obj.handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
+
+ execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj);
+ execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
+ execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx0;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
+ gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+ /* Wedge after a small delay. */
+ igt_assert_eq(__check_wait(fd, obj.handle, 100e3), 0);
+
+ /* Unwedge by forcing a reset. */
+ igt_assert(i915_reset_control(true));
+ trigger_reset(fd);
+
+ gem_quiescent_gpu(fd);
+
+ /*
+ * Verify that we are able to submit work after unwedging from
+ * both contexts.
+ */
+ execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx;
+ for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
+ gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+ execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx0;
+ for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
+ gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+ gem_sync(fd, obj.handle);
+ igt_spin_batch_free(fd, hang);
+ gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx);
+ gem_close(fd, obj.handle);
+ }
+
+ gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx0);
+}
+
static int fd = -1;
static void
@@ -635,6 +703,12 @@ igt_main
igt_subtest("in-flight-suspend")
test_inflight_suspend(fd);
+ igt_subtest("reset-stress")
+ test_reset_stress(fd, 0);
+
+ igt_subtest("unwedge-stress")
+ test_reset_stress(fd, TEST_WEDGE);
+
igt_subtest_group {
const struct {
unsigned int wait;
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
