[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_shrink: Exercise OOM and other routes to shrinking in reasonable time

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-07 12:52:28)
> 
> On 07/01/2019 12:31, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Michał Winiarski (2019-01-07 12:27:07)
> >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:37:09PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> A set of subtests which exercises different paths to our shrinker code
> >>> (including the OOM killer) in predictable and reasonable time budget.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   lib/igt_core.c                        |  19 ++
> >>>   lib/igt_core.h                        |   1 +
> >>>   tests/i915/gem_shrink.c               | 399 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>   tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt          |   1 +
> >>>   tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist |   3 +
> >>>   5 files changed, 423 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
> >>> index c8e05814ee70..7c002de0ef1f 100644
> >>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
> >>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
> >>> @@ -26,6 +26,10 @@
> >>>    *
> >>>    * Exercise the shrinker by overallocating GEM objects
> >>>    */
> >>> +#include <sys/types.h>
> >>> +#include <sys/stat.h>
> >>> +#include <sys/wait.h>
> >>> +#include <fcntl.h>
> >>>   
> >>>   #include "igt.h"
> >>>   #include "igt_gt.h"
> >>> @@ -366,6 +370,376 @@ static void reclaim(unsigned engine, int timeout)
> >>>        close(fd);
> >>>   }
> >>>   
> >>> +static unsigned long get_meminfo(const char *info, const char *tag)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     const char *str;
> >>> +     unsigned long val;
> >>> +
> >>> +     str = strstr(info, tag);
> >>> +     if (str && sscanf(str + strlen(tag), " %lu", &val) == 1)
> >>> +             return val >> 10;
> >>> +
> >>> +     igt_warn("Unrecognised /proc/meminfo field: '%s'\n", tag);
> >>> +     return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static unsigned long get_avail_ram_mb(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     int fd;
> >>> +     int ret;
> >>> +     char buf[4096];
> >>> +     unsigned long ram;
> >>> +
> >>> +     fd = open("/proc/meminfo", O_RDONLY);
> >>> +     igt_assert_fd(fd);
> >>> +
> >>> +     ret = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> >>> +     igt_assert(ret >= 0);
> >>> +
> >>> +     close(fd);
> >>> +
> >>> +     ram = get_meminfo(buf, "MemAvailable:");
> >>> +     ram += get_meminfo(buf, "Buffers:");
> >>> +     ram += get_meminfo(buf, "Cached:");
> >>> +     ram += get_meminfo(buf, "SwapCached:");
> >>> +
> >>> +     return ram;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> What's wrong with ones from intel_os.c?
> > 
> > They pull in both an i915 and mm purge, which iirc, had to be avoided
> > here.
> 
> Yep. I can sense a suggestion of adding a lighter weight version to the 
> library now.. :)

Nah, I refrained because I hope for the same leniency (many times over).
Anyway, the third user has to refactor ;)

To serendipity,
-Chris