Re: [PATCH v6] igt/gem_trtt: Exercise the TRTT hardware

From: "Goel, Akash" <akash.goel@intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: akash.goel@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] igt/gem_trtt: Exercise the TRTT hardware
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:30:33 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EFC641.3010508@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160318160109.GD5227@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On 3/18/2016 9:31 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:19:35PM +0530, Goel, Akash wrote:
>> On 3/18/2016 4:02 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> The point about looping is to try and ensure that every possible code
>>> path is interrupted (since we only interrupt every 2us and the code paths
>>> tend to be shorter than than!).
>>
>> Thanks, will follow the gem_softpin.c example.
>>
>> I hope you meant 2ms here & not 2us, since the signal_helper_process
>> is sending signals at the ~500 Hz rate.
>
> Yeah, failed hopeless. Though I thought it was a 5000Hz rate. Any way
> the point is that the chance of a signal interrupting a critical path
> anywhere other than at a wait is small, and so we want to repeat the
> test a few times to increase our chances.

Just rebased. Should I use the 'igt_interruptible' now for eviction 
tests in place of

+       igt_subtest("evict-active-interruptible") {
+               struct timespec start = {};
+               while (igt_seconds_elapsed(&start) < 20)
+                       test_evict_active(fd);
+       }

> -Chris
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx