[igt-dev] i915/gem_exec_fair: Fix failed assertion
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Tue Feb 23 16:34:35 UTC 2021
On 23/02/2021 14:08, Anand Moon wrote:
> Changes fix the Failed assertion below
>
> (gem_exec_fair:1606) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function deadline, file ../tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c:1163:
> (gem_exec_fair:1606) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: missed == 0
> (gem_exec_fair:1606) CRITICAL: 1 child, missed 60 frames, overran by 20095804us
> Subtest basic-deadline failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <anandx.ram.moon at intel.com>
> ---
> tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> index c1a71f77..9d6f9d50 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> @@ -1158,7 +1158,7 @@ static void deadline(int i915, int duration, unsigned int flags)
> igt_waitchildren();
> close(timeline);
>
> - igt_assert_f(missed == 0,
> + igt_assert_f(missed >= 0,
> "%d child, missed %d frames, overran by %'"PRIu64"us\n",
> num_children, missed, over / 1000);
>
>
It's not very good to allow unlimited missed frames. It's akin to
turning that assert into igt_info. Which may be okay in itself, given
the "red" history of the test in CI. At least until the scheduling
improvements land.
Or take a platform where test mostly fails, like SKL or GLK, and try to
figure out what is the cause of failure. Is it a test bug, like trying
to do too much, too many clients, or a consequence of currently limited
i915 scheduling.
If you are not familiar with the area, or need help translating the test
code into "theory of operation", I can help with that (might take some
time to figure it out), or Chris (test author) might jump in.
Regards,
Tvrtko
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list