[igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] lib: Require working GEM (!wedged) to allow hang injection

[Mika Kuoppala]

Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:

> As we ordinarily use a spinning batch to trigger a hang, we cannot do so
> without execbuf. On the other hand, if we do a manual reset of the
> wedged driver, we expect it to remain wedged and for the reset to fail;

by 'manual' you are referring to '-1' on i915_wedged debugfs entry?
-Mika

> failing the test. Even if we remove the igt_assert(!wedged), the test is
> suspect as we don't know if the reset took place and so do not know if
> the conditions the test is trying to setup apply.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>  lib/igt_gt.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/igt_gt.c b/lib/igt_gt.c
> index 4569fd36b..89b318ae6 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_gt.c
> +++ b/lib/igt_gt.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,13 @@ igt_hang_t igt_allow_hang(int fd, unsigned ctx, unsigned flags)
>  	};
>  	unsigned ban;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If the driver is already wedged, we don't expect it to be able
> +	 * to recover from reset and for it to remain wedged. It's hard to
> +	 * say even if we do hang/reset making the test suspect.
> +	 */
> +	igt_require_gem(fd);
> +
>  	igt_assert(igt_sysfs_set_parameter
>  		   (fd, "reset", "%d", INT_MAX /* any reset method */));
>  
> -- 
> 2.18.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx