Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH i-g-t v2 8/8] tests/core_hotunplug: Add 'GEM batch' variant
Hi Michał,
On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 22:02 +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-06-22 18:44:15)
> > Verify if a device with a GEM batch job still running on a GPU can be
> > hot-unplugged cleanly and released, then recovered.
> >
> > v2: rebase on upstream
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik
> > ---
> > tests/core_hotunplug.c | 34 ++
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/core_hotunplug.c b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> > index 7cb699cc2..672ff661d 100644
> > --- a/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> > +++ b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > #include "i915/gem_vm.h"
> > #include "igt.h"
> > #include "igt_device_scan.h"
> > +#include "igt_dummyload.h"
> > #include "igt_kmod.h"
> > #include "igt_sysfs.h"
> >
> > @@ -408,6 +409,32 @@ static void prime_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
> > healthcheck();
> > }
> >
> > +static void batch_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
> > +{
> > + struct hotunplug priv;
> > + igt_spin_t *spin;
> > +
> > + prepare_for_rescan();
> > +
> > + igt_require_gem(priv.fd.drm);
> > +
> > + local_debug("running dummy load");
> > + spin = __igt_spin_new(priv.fd.drm, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN |
> > + IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION);
>
> Do we need IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION here?
Assuming my understanding of IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION was correct, my
intention was to exercise the driver's ability to cancel persistent GPU
tasks on hotunplug and clean up their associated resources on time in
order to avoid late dma_unmap issues. Please advise if you still think
this this flag not needed.
> We're also leaking spin here... And I don't think we can just call
> igt_spin_free
> after unplug, can we?
If you mean memory occupied by the spin structure, I know leaking it
looks bad but I think that shouldn't be a problem in a user space
process that is going to exit soon. But ayway, let me try what happens
on late igt_spin_free attempt.
Thanks,
Janusz
>
> -Michał
>
> > + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
> > +
> > + local_debug("hot unplugging the device");
> > + device_unplug(priv.fd.sysfs_dev);
> > +
> > + local_debug("late closing the removed device instance");
> > + close(priv.fd.drm);
> > +
> > + local_debug("recovering the device");
> > + bus_rescan(priv.fd.sysfs_bus);
> > +
> > + healthcheck();
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Main */
> >
> > igt_main
> > @@ -501,4 +528,11 @@ igt_main
> >
> > igt_fixture
> > igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
> > +
> > + igt_describe("Check if a device with a still running batch can be
> > cleanly unplugged, then released and recovered");
> > + igt_subtest("batch-hotunplug-lateclose")
> > + batch_hotunplug_lateclose();
> > +
> > + igt_fixture
> > + igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.21.1
> >
> > ___
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH i-g-t v2 8/8] tests/core_hotunplug: Add 'GEM batch' variant
Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-06-22 18:44:15)
> Verify if a device with a GEM batch job still running on a GPU can be
> hot-unplugged cleanly and released, then recovered.
>
> v2: rebase on upstream
>
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik
> ---
> tests/core_hotunplug.c | 34 ++
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/core_hotunplug.c b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> index 7cb699cc2..672ff661d 100644
> --- a/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> +++ b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> #include "i915/gem_vm.h"
> #include "igt.h"
> #include "igt_device_scan.h"
> +#include "igt_dummyload.h"
> #include "igt_kmod.h"
> #include "igt_sysfs.h"
>
> @@ -408,6 +409,32 @@ static void prime_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
> healthcheck();
> }
>
> +static void batch_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
> +{
> + struct hotunplug priv;
> + igt_spin_t *spin;
> +
> + prepare_for_rescan();
> +
> + igt_require_gem(priv.fd.drm);
> +
> + local_debug("running dummy load");
> + spin = __igt_spin_new(priv.fd.drm, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN |
> + IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION);
Do we need IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION here?
We're also leaking spin here... And I don't think we can just call igt_spin_free
after unplug, can we?
-Michał
> + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
> +
> + local_debug("hot unplugging the device");
> + device_unplug(priv.fd.sysfs_dev);
> +
> + local_debug("late closing the removed device instance");
> + close(priv.fd.drm);
> +
> + local_debug("recovering the device");
> + bus_rescan(priv.fd.sysfs_bus);
> +
> + healthcheck();
> +}
> +
> /* Main */
>
> igt_main
> @@ -501,4 +528,11 @@ igt_main
>
> igt_fixture
> igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
> +
> + igt_describe("Check if a device with a still running batch can be
> cleanly unplugged, then released and recovered");
> + igt_subtest("batch-hotunplug-lateclose")
> + batch_hotunplug_lateclose();
> +
> + igt_fixture
> + igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
> }
> --
> 2.21.1
>
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH i-g-t v2 8/8] tests/core_hotunplug: Add 'GEM batch' variant
Verify if a device with a GEM batch job still running on a GPU can be
hot-unplugged cleanly and released, then recovered.
v2: rebase on upstream
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik
---
tests/core_hotunplug.c | 34 ++
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/core_hotunplug.c b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
index 7cb699cc2..672ff661d 100644
--- a/tests/core_hotunplug.c
+++ b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
#include "i915/gem_vm.h"
#include "igt.h"
#include "igt_device_scan.h"
+#include "igt_dummyload.h"
#include "igt_kmod.h"
#include "igt_sysfs.h"
@@ -408,6 +409,32 @@ static void prime_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
healthcheck();
}
+static void batch_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
+{
+ struct hotunplug priv;
+ igt_spin_t *spin;
+
+ prepare_for_rescan();
+
+ igt_require_gem(priv.fd.drm);
+
+ local_debug("running dummy load");
+ spin = __igt_spin_new(priv.fd.drm, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN |
+ IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION);
+ igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
+
+ local_debug("hot unplugging the device");
+ device_unplug(priv.fd.sysfs_dev);
+
+ local_debug("late closing the removed device instance");
+ close(priv.fd.drm);
+
+ local_debug("recovering the device");
+ bus_rescan(priv.fd.sysfs_bus);
+
+ healthcheck();
+}
+
/* Main */
igt_main
@@ -501,4 +528,11 @@ igt_main
igt_fixture
igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
+
+ igt_describe("Check if a device with a still running batch can be
cleanly unplugged, then released and recovered");
+ igt_subtest("batch-hotunplug-lateclose")
+ batch_hotunplug_lateclose();
+
+ igt_fixture
+ igt_abort_on_f(failure, "%s\n", failure);
}
--
2.21.1
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
