[igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] igt/gem_sync: Exercise sync after context switch

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 15/08/18 10:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-15 18:20:10)
>>
>>
>> On 15/08/18 03:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-15 00:50:43)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/08/18 04:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> This exercises a special case that may be of interest, waiting for a
>>>>> context that may be preempted in order to reduce the wait.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> +             cycles = 0;
>>>>> +             elapsed = 0;
>>>>> +             start = gettime();
>>>>> +             do {
>>>>> +                     do {
>>>>> +                             double this;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +                             gem_execbuf(fd, &contexts[0].execbuf);
>>>>> +                             gem_execbuf(fd, &contexts[1].execbuf);
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure where the preemption, mentioned in the commit message, is
>>>> coming in.
>>>
>>> Internally. I've suggested that we reorder equivalent contexts in order
>>> to satisfy client waits earlier. So having created two independent
>>> request queues, userspace should be oblivious to the execution order.
>>
>> But there isn't an assert because you don't want that to be part of the
>> contract between the driver and userspace, is that correct?
> 
> Correct. Userspace hasn't specified an order between the two contexts so
> can't actually assert it happens in a particular order. We are free then
> to do whatever we like, but that also means no assertion. Just the
> figures look pretty and ofc we have to check that nothing actually
> breaks.

The last question I have is about the batches, why not choosing a spin 
batch so to make sure that context[0] (and [1]) hasn't completed by the 
time it starts waiting.

Antonio

> -Chris
>