[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: Test to check CONDITIONAL_BATCH_BUFFER_END

[Kumar, Janga Rahul]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dandamudi, Priyanka <priyanka.dandamudi at intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 7:23 PM
> To: Dandamudi, Priyanka <priyanka.dandamudi at intel.com>; Kumar, Janga
> Rahul <janga.rahul.kumar at intel.com>; Ch, Sai Gowtham
> <sai.gowtham.ch at intel.com>; igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: Test to check
> CONDITIONAL_BATCH_BUFFER_END
> 
> From: Priyanka Dandamudi <priyanka.dandamudi at intel.com>
> 
> Added a basic test to check MI_CONDITIONAL_BATCH_BUFFER_END
> instruction.
> 
> Cc: Janga Rahul Kumar <janga.rahul.kumar at intel.com>
> Cc: Sai Gowtham Ch <sai.gowtham.ch at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Priyanka Dandamudi <priyanka.dandamudi at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c index
> 9c14bfd14..66fbacc77 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@
>   */
> 
>  #define MAX_INSTANCE 9
> +#define STORE 0
> +#define COND_BATCH 1
> 
>  struct data {
>  	uint32_t batch[16];
> @@ -48,11 +50,38 @@ static void store_dword_batch(struct data *data,
> uint64_t addr, int value)
>  	data->addr = batch_addr;
>  }
> 
> +static void cond_batch(struct data *data, uint64_t addr, int value) {
> +	int b;
> +	uint64_t batch_offset = (char *)&(data->batch) - (char *)data;
> +	uint64_t batch_addr = addr + batch_offset;
> +	uint64_t sdi_offset = (char *)&(data->data) - (char *)data;
> +	uint64_t sdi_addr = addr + sdi_offset;
> +
> +	b = 0;
> +	data->batch[b++] = MI_ATOMIC | MI_ATOMIC_INC;
> +	data->batch[b++] = sdi_addr;
> +	data->batch[b++] = sdi_addr >> 32;
> +	data->batch[b++] = MI_COND_BATCH_BUFFER_END |
> MI_DO_COMPARE | 5 << 12 | 2;
MI_DO_COMPARE is setting 21st bit in the instruction, Does it make any difference if we don't add it ?

> +	data->batch[b++] = value;
> +	data->batch[b++] = sdi_addr;
> +	data->batch[b++] = sdi_addr >> 32;
> +	data->batch[b++] = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START | 1;
> +	data->batch[b++] = lower_32_bits(batch_addr);
> +	data->batch[b++] = upper_32_bits(batch_addr);
> +	data->batch[b++] = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END might not be needed here as we are trying to END buffer execution conditionally using MI_COND_BATCH_BUFFER_END

> +	igt_assert(b <= ARRAY_SIZE(data->batch));
> +
> +	data->addr = batch_addr;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * SUBTEST: basic-store
>   * Description: Basic test to verify store dword.
> + * SUBTEST: basic-cond-batch
> + * Description: Basic test to verify cond batch end instruction.
>   */
> -static void store(int fd)
> +static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type)
>  {
>  	struct drm_xe_sync sync = {
>  		.flags = DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SYNCOBJ |
> DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL, @@ -86,7 +115,14 @@ static void store(int fd)
> 
>  	xe_vm_bind_async(fd, vm, hw_engine->gt_id, bo, 0, addr, bo_size,
> &sync, 1);
>  	data = xe_bo_map(fd, bo, bo_size);
> -	store_dword_batch(data, addr, value);
> +
> +	if (inst_type == STORE)
> +		store_dword_batch(data, addr, value);
> +	else {
Use COND_BATCH check to make this function future proof.

> +		/* A random value where it stops at the below value. */
> +		value = 20;
> +		cond_batch(data, addr, value);
Validate that the buffer executed in a conditional loop by checking the incremented address with the value "20" here.

-Rahul

> +	}
> 
>  	exec_queue = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, hw_engine, 0);
>  	exec.exec_queue_id = exec_queue;
> @@ -302,7 +338,10 @@ igt_main
>  	}
> 
>  	igt_subtest("basic-store")
> -		store(fd);
> +		basic_inst(fd, STORE);
> +
> +	igt_subtest("basic-cond-batch")
> +		basic_inst(fd, COND_BATCH);
> 
>  	igt_subtest("basic-all") {
>  		xe_for_each_gt(fd, gt)
> --
> 2.25.1