Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH igt] test/gem_exec_schedule: Check each engine is an independent timeline

[Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com>]

On 23/04/18 08:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-04-23 16:37:17)
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/18 06:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
>>> (fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
>>> install a blocker on all other engines, that should not affect execution
>>> on the local engine.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>>> +static void independent(int fd, unsigned int engine)
>>> +{
>>> +     IGT_CORK_HANDLE(cork);
>>> +     uint32_t scratch, plug, batch;
>>> +     igt_spin_t *spin = NULL;
>>> +     unsigned int other;
>>> +     uint32_t *ptr;
>>> +
>>> +     igt_require(engine != 0);
>>> +
>>> +     scratch = gem_create(fd, 4096);
>>> +     plug = igt_cork_plug(&cork, fd);
>>> +
>>> +     /* Check that we can submit to engine while all others are blocked */
>>> +     for_each_physical_engine(fd, other) {
>>> +             if (other == engine)
>>> +                     continue;
>>> +
>>> +             if (spin == NULL) {
>>> +                     spin = __igt_spin_batch_new(fd, 0, other, 0);
>>> +             } else {
>>> +                     struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj = {
>>> +                             .handle = spin->handle,
>>> +                     };
>>> +                     struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 eb = {
>>> +                             .buffer_count = 1,
>>> +                             .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj),
>>> +                             .flags = other,
>>> +                     };
>>> +                     gem_execbuf(fd, &eb);
>>> +             }
>>> +
>>> +             store_dword(fd, 0, other, scratch, 0, other, plug, 0);
>>> +     }
>>> +     igt_require(spin);
>>> +
>>> +     /* Same priority, but different timeline (as different engine) */
>>> +     batch = __store_dword(fd, 0, engine, scratch, 0, engine, plug, 0);
>>
>> It would be interesting to check that priority scheduling/preemption is
>> still happening on the free engine.
> 
> It's being run on machines without scheduling as well. Reordering tests
> are later; not sure if I care about reordering while blocking, that's an
> entirely different set of tests being worked on for queues.

Cool, a different set of tests is what I had in mind as well :).

Oh BTW, with the igt_require in the subtests this is:

Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com>

Thanks,
Antonio

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