[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 06:01:12PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 30 October 2017 at 15:40, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:44:45PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> On 24 October 2017 at 22:18, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> >> <prasannatsmkumar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
> >> > drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar at gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > Changes in v2:
> >> > Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly
> >> > used.
> >> >
> >> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> > index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> > @@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
> >> >         struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> >> >         struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
> >> >
> >> > +       enum pipe pipe;
> >> > +       for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
> >> > +               struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
> >> > +                                                                 pipe);
> >> > +               drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
> >> > +       }
> >> > +
> >> >         i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
> >> >
> >> >         if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
> >> > --
> >> > 2.10.0
> >> >
> >>
> >> From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@drv_module_reload@basic-reload.html
> >> it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
> >> > 0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
> >>
> >> I think patch 1 is good to go.
> >
> > Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you
> > pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it
> > fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just
> > had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed
> > that broke every test :-/
> > -Daniel
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> 
> I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.

Seems to fail in CI:

https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32648/

I guess you need to test this on a local box somewhere to figure out
what's wrong.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch