[PATCH] [i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_vm:Reduce n_execs for bind-array-enobufs

[Cavitt, Jonathan]

From: Randhawa, Jagmeet <jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 1:29 PM
To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
Cc: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_vm:Reduce n_execs for bind-array-enobufs
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/23/2024 7:12 AM, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Randhawa, Jagmeet <jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com><mailto:jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:12 PM
> > > Cc: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org<mailto:igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org>; Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com><mailto:jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>; Zuo, Alex <alex.zuo at intel.com><mailto:alex.zuo at intel.com>; Konieczny, Kamil <kamil.konieczny at intel.com><mailto:kamil.konieczny at intel.com>; Randhawa, Jagmeet <jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com><mailto:jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH] [i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_vm:Reduce n_execs for bind-array-enobufs
> > >
> > > The bind-array-enobufs test in xe_vm.c is intended to trigger
> > > an -ENOBUFS error by submitting an oversized bind array.
> > > After encountering and handling the error, the test reduces
> > > n_execs by half and retries the operation. On some environments
> > > with stricter resource limits (e.g. simulator),
> > >
> > Is it "just" simulator this is an issue on?  Because if so, we could probably
> > use igt_run_in_simulation() to narrow the scope:
> >
> > """
> >                        xe_cork_fini(&cork);
>  > -                    n_execs = n_execs / 2;
>  > +                   n_execs /= igt_run_in_simulation() ? 4 : 2;
> > }
> > """
> >
> > If not, then
> > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com><mailto:jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
> > -Jonathan Cavitt
>
> Thank you for your comment and review Jonathan. Oddly when I tested the following line
> "n_execs /= igt_run_in_simulation() ? 4 : 2;" The test fails as it was before the original patch was sent
> so I suspect igt_run_in_simulation() is returning false and we are taking the "2" integer in this case.
> I believe it is just simulator we are facing this issue on, however I think leaving the code as
> "n_execs = n_execs / 4;" doesn't do any harm if we run it on any other platform such as hardware
> , as it does not affect the basis of the test which is to trigger enobufs error, handle it, and then
> run with less n_execs to pass on the next iterations. This patch will just accelerate the test on hardware.
> If this works with you, may I ask if I still have your reviewed-by? I can change it and investigate
> if you feel strongly about it. Thanks again.

That’s certainly strange, but I’ll accept that as an explanation.  My Reviewed-by stands.
-Jonathan Cavitt

>
> Jagmeet
>
> > >
> > >
> > > halving n_execs isn't sufficient to prevent the ENOBUFS error on the retry.
> > > Reducing n_execs further to n_execs / 4 allows the test to pass
> > > successfully. This patch modifies the test to reduce n_execs
> > > to n_execs / 4 after an ENOBUFS error is handled. This ensures
> > > compatibility with environments that have tighter resource
> > > constraints while maintaining the test's integrity.
> > > > Cc: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com><mailto:jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jagmeet Randhawa <jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com><mailto:jagmeet.randhawa at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/intel/xe_vm.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_vm.c b/tests/intel/xe_vm.c
> > > index 7a8740b69..e78ddd0e5 100644
> > > --- a/tests/intel/xe_vm.c
> > > +++ b/tests/intel/xe_vm.c
> > > @@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ test_bind_array(int fd, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci, int n_execs,
> > >                    xe_cork_end(&cork);
> > >                    xe_cork_wait_done(&cork);
> > >                    xe_cork_fini(&cork);
> > > -                 n_execs = n_execs / 2;
> > > +                n_execs = n_execs / 4;
> > >     }
> > >
> > >     xe_vm_bind_array(fd, vm, bind_exec_queue, bind_ops, n_execs, sync, 1);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/igt-dev/attachments/20241023/9172ce0f/attachment-0001.htm>