[igt-dev] [PATCH igt] test/gem_exec_schedule: Check each engine is an independent timeline
Antonio Argenziano
antonio.argenziano at intel.com
Mon Apr 23 16:00:29 UTC 2018
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 at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at 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 at intel.com>
Thanks,
Antonio
> -Chris
>
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list