[PATCH v2 2/2] tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration: Restore preempt timeout
Kamil Konieczny
kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com
Thu Oct 31 18:30:14 UTC 2024
Hi Jonathan,
On 2024-10-31 at 16:31:22 +0000, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> The subtests of sysfs_timeslice_duration modify the preempt_timeout_us
> and timeslice_duration_us values. However, while the test does restore
> the timeslice_duration_us value at the end of execution, it does not do
> the same for preempt_timeout_us. Because the value is not properly
> restored, future tests can end up using the unexpected preempt timeout
> value and thus have unexpected behavior.
>
> Save and restore the preempt_timeout_us value during the test.
>
> This fix does not apply to xe_sysfs_preempt_timeout because only the
> preempt_timeout_us is modified during those tests, and the value is
> correcty restored before the tests end.
>
> v2: Also restore preempt_timeout_us on test failure (Kamil)
>
> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/2976
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
> CC: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar at intel.com>
> CC: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration.c b/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
> index 914575a282..576be98ede 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_timeslice_duration.c
> @@ -115,10 +115,11 @@ static uint64_t __test_timeout(int fd, int engine, unsigned int timeout, uint16_
> static void test_timeout(int fd, int engine, const char **property, uint16_t class, int gt)
> {
> uint64_t delays[] = { 1000, 50000, 100000, 500000 };
> - unsigned int saved;
> + unsigned int saved, old_pt;
> uint64_t elapsed;
> uint64_t epsilon;
>
> + igt_assert(igt_sysfs_scanf(engine, "preempt_timeout_us", "%u", &old_pt) == 1);
> igt_require(igt_sysfs_printf(engine, "preempt_timeout_us", "%u", 1) == 1);
> igt_assert(igt_sysfs_scanf(engine, property[0], "%u", &saved) == 1);
> igt_debug("Initial %s:%u\n", property[0], saved);
> @@ -140,6 +141,9 @@ static void test_timeout(int fd, int engine, const char **property, uint16_t cla
> }
>
> set_timeslice_duration(engine, saved);
> + igt_assert_lte(0, igt_sysfs_printf(engine, "preempt_timeout_us", "%u", old_pt));
Imho '_lt' - zero is an error?!
> + igt_sysfs_scanf(engine, "preempt_timeout_us", "%u", &saved);
> + igt_assert_eq(saved, old_pt);
> }
>
> igt_main
> @@ -158,7 +162,7 @@ igt_main
> int gt_count = 0;
> int fd = -1, sys_fd, gt;
> int engines_fd[8], gt_fd[8];
> - unsigned int tds[8];
> + unsigned int tds[8], pts[8];
>
> igt_fixture {
> fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_XE);
> @@ -176,6 +180,9 @@ igt_main
> igt_assert(igt_sysfs_scanf(engines_fd[gt_count],
> "timeslice_duration_us",
> "%u", &tds[gt_count]) == 1);
> + igt_assert(igt_sysfs_scanf(engines_fd[gt_count],
imho igt_require should be enough.
> + "preempt_timeout_us",
> + "%u", &pts[gt_count]) == 1);
> gt_count++;
> }
> }
> @@ -194,6 +201,8 @@ igt_main
> }
> igt_fixture {
> for (int i = gt_count - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> + igt_assert_lte(0, igt_sysfs_printf(engines_fd[i], "preempt_timeout_us",
This should be '> 0' as printf return number of bytes written,
also in case of error imho better use igt_abort()
We do not want proceed with any test after a failure.
Maybe add also check here if old value was really restored?
> + "%u", pts[i]));
> set_timeslice_duration(engines_fd[i], tds[i]);
Same problem is here, function makes checks and uses igt_assert(),
instead of calling it, open code restoration and abort on error.
Or code that function to return bool instead of asserting?
Same goes for restoration in patch 1.
Regards,
Kamil
> close(engines_fd[i]);
> close(gt_fd[i]);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list