[igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for lib/i915/perf: Fix non-card0 processing (rev4)

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On czwartek, 6 maja 2021 14:46:56 CEST Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > On czwartek, 6 maja 2021 12:47:26 CEST Petri Latvala wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:41:07PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > > > On czwartek, 6 maja 2021 10:42:55 CEST Patchwork wrote:
> > > > > == Series Details ==
> > > > > 
> > > > > Series: lib/i915/perf: Fix non-card0 processing (rev4)
> > > > > URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/89701/
> > > > > State : failure
> > > > > 
> > > > > == Summary ==
> > > > > 
> > > > > CI Bug Log - changes from IGT_6080_full -> IGTPW_5786_full
> > > > > ====================================================
> > > > > 
> > > > > Summary
> > > > > -------
> > > > > 
> > > > >   **FAILURE**
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Serious unknown changes coming with IGTPW_5786_full absolutely need to be
> > > > >   verified manually.
> > > > >   
> > > > >   If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
> > > > >   introduced in IGTPW_5786_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
> > > > >   to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in 
> > > > CI.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   External URL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5786/
> > > > index.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > Possible new issues
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
> > > > IGTPW_5786_full:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ### IGT changes ###
> > > > > 
> > > > > #### Possible regressions ####
> > > > > 
> > > > >   * igt at kms_big_fb@y-tiled-16bpp-rotate-180:
> > > > >     - shard-tglb:         [PASS][1] -> [FAIL][2]
> > > > >    [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_6080/shard-tglb6/
> > > > igt at kms_big_fb@y-tiled-16bpp-rotate-180.html
> > > > >    [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5786/shard-tglb5/
> > > > igt at kms_big_fb@y-tiled-16bpp-rotate-180.html
> > > > > 
> > > > >   * igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-128x42-sliding:
> > > > >     - shard-apl:          [PASS][3] -> [FAIL][4]
> > > > >    [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_6080/shard-apl2/
> > > > igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-128x42-sliding.html
> > > > >    [4]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5786/shard-apl8/
> > > > igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-128x42-sliding.html
> > > > >     - shard-kbl:          [PASS][5] -> [FAIL][6] +1 similar issue
> > > > >    [5]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_6080/shard-kbl2/
> > > > igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-128x42-sliding.html
> > > > >    [6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5786/shard-kbl2/
> > > > igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-128x42-sliding.html
> > > > 
> > > > The change only affects two tests which are calling intel_perf_for_fd(): perf 
> > > > and core_hotunplug.  In the two latter cases reported above, none of those two 
> > > > tests were executed in the same run before the reported failure occurred so 
> > > > there is no way for the change to be responsible for that failure.
> > > > 
> > > > In the first case of the above three, a perf test was indeed executed a few 
> > > > steps before the reported failure occurred, but for me it's hard to understand 
> > > > how that could be the reason of that failure, close to impossible.  Lakshmi, 
> > > > can we please retry?
> > > 
> > > Retest queued.
> > 
> > The second attempt have apparently given better results, thank you.
> 
> But the shard results are not in yet, that was just BAT.

Oh, I missed that, sorry.

Janusz

> 
> 
>