[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915/gem_shrink: Fix memory requirement assertion

[Niranjana Vishwanathapura]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:54:40PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
>On 15/11/2022 19:05, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
>>The reclaim subtest do not require the alloc_size memory
>>allocations. Ensure the memory requirement assert is only
>>applied for other subtests.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura at intel.com>
>>---
>>  tests/i915/gem_shrink.c | 8 ++++----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
>>index e3e20dfc9..380d2c846 100644
>>--- a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
>>+++ b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c
>>@@ -456,9 +456,6 @@ igt_main
>>  			 num_processes, alloc_size);
>>  		alloc_size <<= 20;
>>-		igt_require_memory(num_processes, alloc_size,
>>-				   CHECK_SWAP | CHECK_RAM);
>>-
>
>If that's the case then all the other stuff in the fixture is not 
>really used either (like alloc_size, num_processes etc). Maybe just 
>move the fixture instead?
>
>igt_subtest_group {
>	igt_fixture {
>
>	}
>
>	for(const struct test *t = tests; t->name; t++) {
>	....	
>}
>
>igt_subtest("reclaim")
>...
>

Ok, but the igt_fixture() inside the igt_subtest_group still gets executed
when we run reclaim subtest (with '--r reclaim').

Niranjana

>>  		close(fd);
>>  	}
>>@@ -467,9 +464,12 @@ igt_main
>>  	for(const struct test *t = tests; t->name; t++) {
>>  		for(const struct mode *m = modes; m->suffix; m++) {
>>-			igt_subtest_f("%s%s", t->name, m->suffix)
>>+			igt_subtest_f("%s%s", t->name, m->suffix) {
>>+				igt_require_memory(num_processes, alloc_size,
>>+						   CHECK_SWAP | CHECK_RAM);
>>  				run_test(num_processes, alloc_size,
>>  					 t->func, m->flags);
>>+			}
>
>
>
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>  }