[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] lib/i915/gem_engine_topology: add iterator for choosing one random engine from each class

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 21/03/2022 09:52, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:04:44PM +0100, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
>> In new GPUs there are many engines so tests with fixed timeout
>> which iterate over all engines can take much longer than on older
>> gens. Add new iterator for_one_random_cfg_ctx_engine, which will
>> iterate over each class of engines and will choose one from each
>> class at random.
>>
>> Cc: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.h | 19 ++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c b/lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c
>> index ca3333c2..52a2f3ef 100644
>> --- a/lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c
>> +++ b/lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c
>> @@ -208,6 +208,70 @@ void intel_next_engine(struct intel_engine_data *ed)
>>   	}
>>   }
>>   
>> +static void __intel_random_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct timespec start;
>> +
>> +	clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start);
>> +	igt_debug("seed %d\n", (int)start.tv_nsec);
>> +	srand((int)start.tv_nsec);
>> +}
> 
> I don't like randomness for testing, but it sure is sometimes needed.
> 
> We have quite a bit of rand()-using tests and some of them have a
> --seed parameter so their results can be reproduced. Currently there's
> no overlap in sight with them and this thing, but if testing ever
> expands that way, mixing RNGs might break reproduceability. Can this
> instead use another RNG stream that's self-contained, like maybe
> rand_r() or such? Or the one implemented in lib/igt_rand.

Agreed, for developer use it is an essential requirement to be able to 
run a test multiple times with same parameters. So any test which would 
be converted to use for_one_random_ctx_cfg_engine would need to have a 
common way of specifying a stable config.

Hm if we look at the end result:

  	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("active") {
-		for_each_ctx_cfg_engine(fd, &cfg, e) {
+		for_one_random_ctx_cfg_engine(fd, &cfg, e) {
  			igt_dynamic_f("%s", e->name)
  				active(fd, &cfg, e, 20, 1);
  		}

Would that even work better at the test runner layer? New testlist 
syntax to pick one random out of a list of dynamic subtests?

Regards,

Tvrtko