>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
>Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:58 AM
>To: Morton, Derek J <derek.j.mor...@intel.com>; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t v3 5/6] tests/gem_scheduler: Add subtests to test
>batch priority behaviour
>
>
>
>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.mor...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> 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, ¶m);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* 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.
Ok will try 200
>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@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
