[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_parallel: Add skip_on_simulation to whole binary

[Katarzyna Dec]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:42:42PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Katarzyna Dec (2019-02-08 13:32:38)
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:27:51PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Katarzyna Dec (2019-02-08 13:23:59)
> > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:14:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Katarzyna Dec (2019-02-08 13:10:37)
> > > > > > On simulation environment these tests were failing. During debug
> > > > > > we decided that whole binary should be skipped, because there is
> > > > > > no additional coverage in simulation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How did they fail? There are some paths here that are rarely touched
> > > > > elsewhere.
> > > > > -Chris
> > > > I like you challenges Chris :)
> > > > 
> > > > gem_exec_parallel@*context* were failing with error:
> > > > 
> > > > (gem_exec_parallel:1245) ioctl_wrappers-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure
> > > > function gem_execbuf, file ../lib/ioctl_wrappers.c:605:
> > > > (gem_exec_parallel:1245) ioctl_wrappers-CRITICAL: Failed assertion:
> > > > __gem_execbuf(fd, execbuf) == 0
> > > > (gem_exec_parallel:1245) ioctl_wrappers-CRITICAL: error: -28 != 0
> > > 
> > > Should not happen.
> > But happends and is reproducible on some CI runs.
> 
> Well fix it. It is not a valid error in this case. ENOSPC is only valid
> in the case the user submitted more than could be fitted into the GGTT
> (or had an overlap in their softpin). In this instance, it means that
> one _context_ impacted another client, and that is simply not allowed.
>
According to what you are saying we need to debug and fix the issue.
> > > > and @*fds* with:
> > > > 
> > > > (gem_exec_parallel:1315) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Last errno: 24, Too many open
> > > > files
> > > 
> > > That is boring, but more indicative of system setup failure. We should
> > > be configuring the system to allow ourselves, as root, to use as many fd
> > > as can fit in memory.
> > > 
> > > I'd recommend a pass through the basic stress test at least. It won't
> > > take a lot to exercise some unusual conditions.
> > > -Chris
> > 
> > What if we skip all *context* and all *fds* and leave rest as it is?
> > Will it be resonable in this shape?
> 
> I would rewrite it such that the threads ran for a certain period of
> time rather than iterations; set basic to something small (say 2s) and
> left everything else to run for 150s (tends to be the common value I've
Is this comment to *fds* testcases or general to whole binary?
Kasia :)
> used for random stress tests). Then skip everything but the basic-all
> test.
> -Chris