Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:37:46PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > >>Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ? > >>I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to > >>minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within > >>CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ? > >My understanding, yes, we are running on that order. > >Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi? > > > > Order: Yes, that order. I'm waiting for an opportune moment to test > a patch to sleep-and-retry in vgem unload to prune out the cases of > just having soon-to-finish work left over. Just need to tune the > amount of retries and sleeping. > > We can also order vgem unload test to be first (along with > drv_module_reload) depending on whether we want to catch those stray > module leaks. Comments on that tradeoff? I planned on having vgem/unload be the first vgem test. It probably makes sense to have a second one at the end to catch a leak over the run. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ? I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ? My understanding, yes, we are running on that order. Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi? Order: Yes, that order. I'm waiting for an opportune moment to test a patch to sleep-and-retry in vgem unload to prune out the cases of just having soon-to-finish work left over. Just need to tune the amount of retries and sleeping. We can also order vgem unload test to be first (along with drv_module_reload) depending on whether we want to catch those stray module leaks. Comments on that tradeoff? Comments in the test list: Not yet. Piglit patch for them just sent to piglit mailing list. Petri Latvala ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
> > > > == Series Details == > > > > > > > > Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the > > > > enabled > > > engines (rev3) > > > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ > > > > State : warning > > > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > > > Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only > > > > for the enabled engines > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3 > > > > /mbo > > > > x/ > > > > > > > > Test vgem_basic: > > > > Subgroup unload: > > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) > > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) > > > > skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) > > > > > > > Checked with Chris about the above failure. > > > He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be > > > attributed to the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. > > Yes, this test is still behaving badly especially with SKL systems but also > > with > bdw and kbl. > > Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ? > I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to > minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within > CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ? My understanding, yes, we are running on that order. Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi? > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre Jani Saarinen Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:47:24PM +, Saarinen, Jani wrote: > > > == Series Details == > > > > > > Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled > > engines (rev3) > > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ > > > State : warning > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for > > > the enabled engines > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbo > > > x/ > > > > > > Test vgem_basic: > > > Subgroup unload: > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) > > > skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) > > > > > Checked with Chris about the above failure. > > He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be attributed to > > the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. > Yes, this test is still behaving badly especially with SKL systems but also > with bdw and kbl. Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ? I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
> > == Series Details == > > > > Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled > engines (rev3) > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ > > State : warning > > > > == Summary == > > > > Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for > > the enabled engines > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbo > > x/ > > > > Test vgem_basic: > > Subgroup unload: > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) > > skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) > > > Checked with Chris about the above failure. > He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be attributed to > the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. Yes, this test is still behaving badly especially with SKL systems but also with bdw and kbl. > > Best regards > Akash > > > fi-bdw-5557u total:248 pass:231 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:17 > > fi-bsw-n3050 total:248 pass:204 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:44 > > fi-bxt-t5700 total:248 pass:217 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:31 > > fi-byt-j1900 total:248 pass:214 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:32 > > fi-byt-n2820 total:248 pass:210 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:37 > > fi-hsw-4770 total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 > > fi-hsw-4770r total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 > > fi-ilk-650 total:248 pass:185 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:61 > > fi-ivb-3520m total:248 pass:221 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 > > fi-ivb-3770 total:248 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:41 > > fi-kbl-7200u total:248 pass:222 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 > > fi-skl-6260u total:248 pass:232 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 > > fi-skl-6700hqtotal:248 pass:223 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 > > fi-skl-6700k total:248 pass:222 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:25 > > fi-skl-6770hqtotal:248 pass:231 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:15 > > fi-snb-2520m total:248 pass:211 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37 > > fi-snb-2600 total:248 pass:209 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:39 > > > > Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_2652/ > > > > f35ed31aea66b3230c366fcba5f3456ae2cb956e drm-intel-nightly: > > 2016y-10m-10d-11h-28m-51s UTC integration manifest 401facf drm/i915: > > Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines > > Jani Saarinen ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
On 13/10/2016 17:10, Goel, Akash wrote: On 10/10/2016 6:03 PM, Patchwork wrote: == Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ State : warning == Summary == Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbox/ Test vgem_basic: Subgroup unload: pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) Checked with Chris about the above failure. He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be attributed to the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. I tried to merge it but due recent changes to error capture it doesn't apply any longer. Can you please rebase and resend? Regards, Tvrtko ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
On 10/10/2016 6:03 PM, Patchwork wrote: == Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ State : warning == Summary == Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbox/ Test vgem_basic: Subgroup unload: pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) Checked with Chris about the above failure. He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be attributed to the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. Best regards Akash fi-bdw-5557u total:248 pass:231 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:17 fi-bsw-n3050 total:248 pass:204 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:44 fi-bxt-t5700 total:248 pass:217 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:31 fi-byt-j1900 total:248 pass:214 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:32 fi-byt-n2820 total:248 pass:210 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:37 fi-hsw-4770 total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-hsw-4770r total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-ilk-650 total:248 pass:185 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:61 fi-ivb-3520m total:248 pass:221 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 fi-ivb-3770 total:248 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:41 fi-kbl-7200u total:248 pass:222 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 fi-skl-6260u total:248 pass:232 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 fi-skl-6700hqtotal:248 pass:223 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-skl-6700k total:248 pass:222 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:25 fi-skl-6770hqtotal:248 pass:231 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:15 fi-snb-2520m total:248 pass:211 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37 fi-snb-2600 total:248 pass:209 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:39 Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_2652/ f35ed31aea66b3230c366fcba5f3456ae2cb956e drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-10m-10d-11h-28m-51s UTC integration manifest 401facf drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ State : warning == Summary == Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbox/ Test vgem_basic: Subgroup unload: pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) fi-bdw-5557u total:248 pass:231 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:17 fi-bsw-n3050 total:248 pass:204 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:44 fi-bxt-t5700 total:248 pass:217 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:31 fi-byt-j1900 total:248 pass:214 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:32 fi-byt-n2820 total:248 pass:210 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:37 fi-hsw-4770 total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-hsw-4770r total:248 pass:224 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-ilk-650 total:248 pass:185 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:61 fi-ivb-3520m total:248 pass:221 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 fi-ivb-3770 total:248 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:41 fi-kbl-7200u total:248 pass:222 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 fi-skl-6260u total:248 pass:232 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 fi-skl-6700hqtotal:248 pass:223 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 fi-skl-6700k total:248 pass:222 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:25 fi-skl-6770hqtotal:248 pass:231 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:15 fi-snb-2520m total:248 pass:211 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37 fi-snb-2600 total:248 pass:209 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:39 Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_2652/ f35ed31aea66b3230c366fcba5f3456ae2cb956e drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-10m-10d-11h-28m-51s UTC integration manifest 401facf drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
