On 22/03/2019 09:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
Exercise reusing the GTT of one ctx in another.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
---
tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
index b3f8637df..54ade8b4b 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
@@ -36,17 +36,6 @@ IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Basic test for context set/get param input
validation.");
#define NEW_CTX BIT(0)
#define USER BIT(1)
-static int reopen_driver(int fd)
-{
- char path[256];
-
- snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "/proc/self/fd/%d", fd);
- fd = open(path, O_RDWR);
- igt_assert_lte(0, fd);
-
- return fd;
-}
-
static void set_priority(int i915)
{
static const int64_t test_values[] = {
@@ -91,7 +80,7 @@ static void set_priority(int i915)
igt_permute_array(values, size, igt_exchange_int64);
igt_fork(flags, NEW_CTX | USER) {
- int fd = reopen_driver(i915);
+ int fd = gem_reopen_driver(i915);
struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg = {
.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY,
.ctx_id = flags & NEW_CTX ? gem_context_create(fd) : 0,
@@ -143,6 +132,73 @@ static void set_priority(int i915)
free(values);
}
+static uint32_t __batch_create(int i915, uint32_t offset)
+{
+ const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
+ uint32_t handle;
+
+ handle = gem_create(i915, ALIGN(offset + 4, 4096));
+ gem_write(i915, handle, offset, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
+
+ return handle;
+}
+
+static uint32_t batch_create(int i915)
+{
+ return __batch_create(i915, 0);
+}
Looks familiar. :)
+
+static void test_vm(int i915)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 batch = {
+ .handle = batch_create(i915),
+ };
+ struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 eb = {
+ .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&batch),
+ .buffer_count = 1,
+ };
+ struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg = {
+ .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_VM,
+ };
+ uint32_t parent, child;
+
+ arg.value = -1ull;
+ igt_require(__gem_context_set_param(i915, &arg) == -ENOENT);
+
+ parent = gem_context_create(i915);
+ child = gem_context_create(i915);
+
+ eb.rsvd1 = parent;
+ batch.offset = 48 << 20;
+ gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
+ igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
+
+ eb.rsvd1 = child;
+ batch.offset = 0;
+ gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
+ igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 0);
+
+ eb.rsvd1 = parent;
+ gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
+ igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
Please drop a comment at the start of these execbuf operations to
explain what and why. We don't need softpin to guarantee they will get
pinned to where we want them to?
+
+ arg.ctx_id = parent;
+ gem_context_get_param(i915, &arg);
+
+ arg.ctx_id = child;
+ gem_context_set_param(i915, &arg);
Another get param to assert child vm id is the same as the parent?
Also, try self-assign? I mean set the same vm id as already have?
+
+ eb.rsvd1 = child;
+ gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
+ igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
Interesting, for me at least. Please put a comment here.
+
+ gem_context_destroy(i915, child);
+ gem_context_destroy(i915, parent);
+
+ gem_sync(i915, batch.handle);
+ gem_close(i915, batch.handle);
+}
+
igt_main
{
struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg;
@@ -253,6 +309,9 @@ igt_main
gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg);
}
+ igt_subtest("vm")
+ test_vm(fd);
+
arg.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
igt_subtest("set-priority-not-supported") {
Add to basic test list? Or call basic-vm? Honestly don't remember how we
do it these days..
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
