From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB21C433EF for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:45:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C16610F9 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:45:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 48C16610F9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA906EC26; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A04816EC26; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:45:18 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10136"; a="227520427" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,371,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="227520427" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Oct 2021 00:45:18 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,371,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="524964338" Received: from ebarkhuy-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.193.241]) ([10.213.193.241]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Oct 2021 00:45:16 -0700 To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com, IGT-Dev@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org Cc: Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org References: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 08:45:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Skip gem_exec_fair on GuC based platforms X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On 13/10/2021 23:43, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote: > From: John Harrison > > The gem_exec_fair test is specifically testing scheduler algorithm > performance. However, GuC does not implement the same algorithm as > execlist mode and this test is not applicable. So, until sw arch > approves a new algorithm and it is implemented in GuC, stop running > the test. > > Signed-off-by: John Harrison > --- > tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > index ef5a450f6..ca9c73c6e 100644 > --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > @@ -1314,6 +1314,12 @@ igt_main > igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(i915)); > igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_ctx_priority(i915)); > > + /* > + * These tests are for a specific scheduling model which is > + * not currently implemented by GuC. So skip on GuC platforms. > + */ > + igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) < 12); I don't understand why do patches which claim Tigerlake is a GuC submission platform keep appearing? It's a stupid patch to use it against, but as a matter of principle this has to receive a clear NACK, from me at least. There are so many ways to avoid the nack, but factually incorrect commit message and code comment just have no place so IMO cannot go in. We can look at on which platforms it passes and on which platforms it mostly fails and decide what to do about it. Or just use debugfs to check whether GuC is in use, IGT does it all the time and it's not ABI. Or improve the skip condition to include gen _and_ _platform_ checks. Anything but proposing patches which are factually incorrect. Regards, Tvrtko > + > cfg = intel_ctx_cfg_all_physical(i915); > > igt_info("CS timestamp frequency: %d\n", > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: References: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 08:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Skip gem_exec_fair on GuC based platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com, IGT-Dev@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org Cc: Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org List-ID: On 13/10/2021 23:43, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote: > From: John Harrison > > The gem_exec_fair test is specifically testing scheduler algorithm > performance. However, GuC does not implement the same algorithm as > execlist mode and this test is not applicable. So, until sw arch > approves a new algorithm and it is implemented in GuC, stop running > the test. > > Signed-off-by: John Harrison > --- > tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > index ef5a450f6..ca9c73c6e 100644 > --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > @@ -1314,6 +1314,12 @@ igt_main > igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(i915)); > igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_ctx_priority(i915)); > > + /* > + * These tests are for a specific scheduling model which is > + * not currently implemented by GuC. So skip on GuC platforms. > + */ > + igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) < 12); I don't understand why do patches which claim Tigerlake is a GuC submission platform keep appearing? It's a stupid patch to use it against, but as a matter of principle this has to receive a clear NACK, from me at least. There are so many ways to avoid the nack, but factually incorrect commit message and code comment just have no place so IMO cannot go in. We can look at on which platforms it passes and on which platforms it mostly fails and decide what to do about it. Or just use debugfs to check whether GuC is in use, IGT does it all the time and it's not ABI. Or improve the skip condition to include gen _and_ _platform_ checks. Anything but proposing patches which are factually incorrect. Regards, Tvrtko > + > cfg = intel_ctx_cfg_all_physical(i915); > > igt_info("CS timestamp frequency: %d\n", >