Re: [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
hi, Jani,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:59:43AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
> >
> > commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some
> > kernel space per vm")
> > git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
> >
> > in testcase: igt
>
> So the kernel test robot runs igt. I've seen a handful of reports over
> the years, but not a whole lot. If you run it even semi-regularly, I
> would have expected more. What's the deal here?
our team merges lots of linux kernel repo/tree in so-called hourly kernels,
tests these hourly kernels by 80+ tools (including igt) on various platforms,
if any failure found comparing to some good bases, we will trigger auto-bisect
to try to catpure fbc (first bad commit) and report. this is the reason you
see this report.
we cannot gurantee coverage since resource constraints, possible failures
in different stage such like merging, building, auto-bisect, and so on. this
means we could fail to capture some issues.
>
> There's clearly overlap with what our CI is doing. Maybe better
> coordination would be useful? Especially wrt reporting. I'm not sure if
> anyone's going to track these mails.
>
> Cc: Ewelina
for this case we just capture a assertion_failure upon
branch: drm-intel/drm-intel-gt-next
on a Commet Lake (with 16G memory). not sure if this is valuable to you,
say, for some legacy platform regression check?
we want to seek advices from you:
(1) if this is still useful, do you want us to limit the receivers of this kind
of report?
(2) or would you suggest there is no need for us to test below repo at all?
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel
>
> > version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
>
> That's six months old and more than 1k commits behind. The results are
> going to be useless, I'm afraid.
got it. if you still want us to keep the test upon the repo, we would upgrade
igt to latest version.
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
Re: [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
>
> commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some
> kernel space per vm")
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
>
> in testcase: igt
So the kernel test robot runs igt. I've seen a handful of reports over
the years, but not a whole lot. If you run it even semi-regularly, I
would have expected more. What's the deal here?
There's clearly overlap with what our CI is doing. Maybe better
coordination would be useful? Especially wrt reporting. I'm not sure if
anyone's going to track these mails.
Cc: Ewelina
> version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
That's six months old and more than 1k commits behind. The results are
going to be useless, I'm afraid.
BR,
Jani.
> with following parameters:
>
> group: group-04
>
>
>
> compiler: gcc-12
> test machine: 20 threads 1 sockets (Commet Lake) with 16G memory
>
> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>
>
> we also observed below tests failed upon this commit while pass on parent.
>
> 8aa519f17512da50 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b3
> ---
>fail:runs %reproductionfail:runs
>| | |
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.bb-with-allocator.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-keep-cache.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-purge-cache.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.blit-reloc-purge-cache.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.delta-check.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-keep-cache-simple.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-purge-cache-simple.fail
>:6 83% 5:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.object-reloc-purge-cache.fail
>:6 100% 6:6
> igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb-ctx.fail
>:6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb.fail
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version
> of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot
> | Closes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.s...@intel.com
>
>
> [ 43.922756][ T447]
> [ 43.935008][ T447] IGT-Version: 1.27.1-g0f075441 (x86_64) (Linux:
> 6.6.0-rc7-01579-g9bb66c179f50 x86_64)
> [ 43.935018][ T447]
> [ 43.947248][ T447] Starting subtest: bb-with-allocator
> [ 43.947258][ T447]
> [ 43.956752][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Test
> assertion failure function __intel_bb_add_object, file
> ../lib/intel_batchbuffer.c:1673:
> [ 43.956762][ T447]
> [ 43.974467][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Failed
> assertion: allocated || reserved
> [ 43.974477][ T447]
> [ 43.987691][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Can't
> get offset, allocated: 0, reserved: 0
> [ 43.987706][ T447]
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231207/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.s...@intel.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
[Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
Hello,
kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some
kernel space per vm")
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
in testcase: igt
version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
with following parameters:
group: group-04
compiler: gcc-12
test machine: 20 threads 1 sockets (Commet Lake) with 16G memory
(please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
we also observed below tests failed upon this commit while pass on parent.
8aa519f17512da50 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b3
---
fail:runs %reproductionfail:runs
| | |
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.bb-with-allocator.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-keep-cache.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-purge-cache.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.blit-reloc-purge-cache.fail
:6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.delta-check.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-keep-cache-simple.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-purge-cache-simple.fail
:6 83% 5:6
igt.api_intel_bb.object-reloc-purge-cache.fail
:6 100% 6:6
igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb-ctx.fail
:6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb.fail
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot
| Closes:
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.s...@intel.com
[ 43.922756][ T447]
[ 43.935008][ T447] IGT-Version: 1.27.1-g0f075441 (x86_64) (Linux:
6.6.0-rc7-01579-g9bb66c179f50 x86_64)
[ 43.935018][ T447]
[ 43.947248][ T447] Starting subtest: bb-with-allocator
[ 43.947258][ T447]
[ 43.956752][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Test
assertion failure function __intel_bb_add_object, file
../lib/intel_batchbuffer.c:1673:
[ 43.956762][ T447]
[ 43.974467][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Failed
assertion: allocated || reserved
[ 43.974477][ T447]
[ 43.987691][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Can't get
offset, allocated: 0, reserved: 0
[ 43.987706][ T447]
The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231207/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.s...@intel.com
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
