[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping: Fix bug in test_smem_oom
Ramalingam C
ramalingam.c at intel.com
Fri Apr 1 08:29:28 UTC 2022
On 2022-04-01 at 12:58:26 +0530, Arjun Melkaveri wrote:
> ctx was not initialized with all physical engines,
> after device reopening.
> This change would resolve assert issue seen in __do_evict.
>
> v2: Added missing intel_ctx_destroy.
>
> Cc: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com>
> Cc: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arjun Melkaveri <arjun.melkaveri at intel.com>
> ---
> tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping.c b/tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping.c
> index 43f0688f..432607b0 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_lmem_swapping.c
> @@ -428,10 +428,14 @@ static void test_smem_oom(int i915,
>
> fill_params(i915, ¶ms, region, 0, 1, true);
>
> + ctx = intel_ctx_create_all_physical(fd);
> + __gem_context_set_persistence(fd, ctx->id, false);
> +
igt fixture already creates same kind of context and pass it here. Could
we reuse it across all the child and parent processes?
Or we need independed context only?
Ram.
> igt_install_exit_handler(smem_oom_exit_handler);
> __do_evict(fd, ctx, ®ion->region, ¶ms,
> params.seed + child + 1);
>
> + intel_ctx_destroy(fd, ctx);
> close(fd);
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list