[PATCH i-g-t 1/2] Revert "tests/intel/xe_pm_residency: Add an assertion on MI_STORE execution time"

[Gupta, Anshuman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ghimiray, Himal Prasad <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:44 AM
> To: Gupta, Anshuman <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>; igt-
> dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>; Nilawar, Badal
> <badal.nilawar at intel.com>; Tauro, Riana <riana.tauro at intel.com>; Poosa,
> Karthik <karthik.poosa at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] Revert "tests/intel/xe_pm_residency: Add an
> assertion on MI_STORE execution time"
> 
> 
> 
> On 08-10-2024 07:31, Gupta, Anshuman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ghimiray, Himal Prasad <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:54 PM
> >> To: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> >> Cc: Ghimiray, Himal Prasad <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>; Brost,
> >> Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>; Nilawar, Badal
> >> <badal.nilawar at intel.com>; Tauro, Riana <riana.tauro at intel.com>;
> >> Gupta, Anshuman <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>; Poosa, Karthik
> >> <karthik.poosa at intel.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] Revert "tests/intel/xe_pm_residency: Add
> >> an assertion on MI_STORE execution time"
> >>
> >> The reported time does not reflect the completion time of
> >> MI_STORE_DWORD; instead, it accounts for the delay in the scheduler.
> >> Therefore, it represents the time taken between xe_exec and syncobj_wait.
> >   igt_assert(syncobj_wait(fd, &syncobj, 1, INT64_MAX, 0, NULL));
> > elapsed = igt_nsec_elapsed(&tv); elapsed is taken right after the
> > syncobj_wait() therefore it represent the time taken by xe_exec +
> syncobj_wait, total time taken for completion of job.
> > Thanks,
> > Anshuman.
> 
> 
> That's true, while writing "time taken between xe_exec and syncobj_wait"
> , I meant to convey in between start of xe_exec and syncobj_wait completion.
> Will rephrase commit message before pushing.
Why do we want to remove assertion ? We don't want to write IGT to make CI happy it is to catch the bugs in KMD. Even in this case as well this is a bug from Linux Kernel.
I don't agree with removal of assertion. 
Thanks,
Anshuman.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this.
> 
> Himal
> 
> 
> >>
> >> This reverts commit 92825ed72be61c5419d95db944fef1c9dda2215a.
> >>
> >> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa at intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray
> >> <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   tests/intel/xe_pm_residency.c | 9 ---------
> >>   1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_pm_residency.c
> >> b/tests/intel/xe_pm_residency.c index 772fe9b57..f4d05889c 100644
> >> --- a/tests/intel/xe_pm_residency.c
> >> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_pm_residency.c
> >> @@ -144,15 +144,6 @@ static void exec_load(int fd, struct
> >> drm_xe_engine_class_instance *hwe, unsigned
> >>   			  1e-3 * submit,
> >>   			  1e-3 * (elapsed - submit));
> >>
> >> -		/*
> >> -		 * MI_STORE_DWORD generally completes within couple of
> >> ms.
> >> -		 * Assert if it takes more than 1.2 seconds, as it will cause
> >> -		 * IGT test to timeout due to sleep of 120 seconds which is
> >> -		 * the current per test timeout. Currently there is no way to
> >> -		 * read this timeout from IGT test.
> >> -		 */
> >> -		igt_assert((uint64_t)elapsed < (uint64_t)(1.2 *
> >> NSEC_PER_SEC));
> >> -
> >>   		syncobj_reset(fd, &syncobj, 1);
> >>
> >>   		/*
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >