[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/3] tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule: Don't use default context

[Zbigniew Kempczyński]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:51:05PM +0200, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
> Hi Zbigniew,
> 
> On 2022-04-21 at 08:09:54 +0200, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
> > Config created on top of all physical devices may provide more devices
> > than default context contains. Using engine id from such "richer"
> > context is wrong when default context will be chosen for this engine.
> > Add dedicated context to handle all engines covered by context cfg.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski at intel.com>
> > Cc: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>
> > Fixes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5444 (timeslicing)
> > ---
> >  tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> > index caeac255de..dfcff849c8 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ static void timeslice(int i915, const intel_ctx_cfg_t *cfg,
> >  		.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj),
> >  		.buffer_count = 1,
> >  	};
> > -	const intel_ctx_t *ctx;
> > +	const intel_ctx_t *ctx[2];
> 
> This looks redundant, see below.
> 
> >  	uint32_t *result;
> >  	int out;
> >  
> > @@ -582,22 +582,25 @@ static void timeslice(int i915, const intel_ctx_cfg_t *cfg,
> >  	igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_timeslicing(i915));
> >  	igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) >= 8);
> >  
> > +	ctx[0] = intel_ctx_create(i915, cfg);
> >  	obj.handle = timeslicing_batches(i915, &offset);
> >  	result = gem_mmap__device_coherent(i915, obj.handle, 0, 4096, PROT_READ);
> >  
> >  	execbuf.flags = engine | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
> >  	execbuf.batch_start_offset = 0;
> > +	execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx[0]->id;
> >  	gem_execbuf_wr(i915, &execbuf);
> > +	intel_ctx_destroy(i915, ctx[0]);
> 
> Here you destroy this and later you create other context, so you
> can just reuse ctx pointer.

Yes, I know I can reuse. I created indexed array to easier track in
which context execbufs are executed. I mean when you're looking at the
code and you see

execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx->id;

you need to track the above code what context is in use. Using ctx[n]->id
increases readability imo. 

I will change to single ctx if you insist.

--
Zbigniew

> >  
> >  	/* No coupling between requests; free to timeslice */
> >  
> > -	ctx = intel_ctx_create(i915, cfg);
> > -	execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx->id;
> > +	ctx[1] = intel_ctx_create(i915, cfg);
> > +	execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx[1]->id;
> >  	execbuf.rsvd2 >>= 32;
> >  	execbuf.flags = engine | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
> >  	execbuf.batch_start_offset = offset;
> >  	gem_execbuf_wr(i915, &execbuf);
> > -	intel_ctx_destroy(i915, ctx);
> > +	intel_ctx_destroy(i915, ctx[1]);
> 
> Maybe here is place for intel_ctx_destroy(i915, ctx[0]); ?
> 
> >  
> >  	gem_sync(i915, obj.handle);
> >  	gem_close(i915, obj.handle);
> > -- 
> > 2.32.0
> > 
> Regards,
> Kamil