On Thursday, April 24, 2014 18:39:44 Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 00:24:47 Marek Olšák wrote: > >> I'm not sure I undertand this. I think the limitation for > >> > >> non-concurrent tests is that they cannot be concurrently, because they > >> > >> do front buffer rendering and other things. That doesn't mean all the > >> > >> off-screen tests cannot be run with the non-concurrent tests > >> > >> simultaneously. > >> > >> > >> > >> Marek > > > > So the bug was that with no -c or -1 option both pools were executed > > simultaneously, so a normal run ended up being concurrent with n+1 > > threads. > > I think Marek's point is that this is fine, since it's fine to run a > test that is marked as "non-concurrent" concurrently with any number > of tests that are marked "concurrent". The only problem is multiple > "non-concurrent" tests running at once. > > I don't know whether that's generically true, but if it is, then this > change should be reverted. > > -ilia
I'm not sure. I know there are front buffer tests that are not safe to run with other front buffer tests, but I thought there were other tests (like ARB_timer_query?) that needed to be the only thing running on the GPU. I was on a quest to try to find the rest of the test that were thread safe and not marked as such and mark them, but I've been sidetracked.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
