[Bug 104241] New: [CI] igt at perf_pmu@busy-vecs0 - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(val) <= (1.0 + (tolerance)) * (double)(ref) && (double)(val) >= (1.0 - (tolerance)) * (double)(ref) (perf_pmu:1587) CRITICAL: 'val' != 'ref' (539089723.000000 not within 5.000000% tolerance

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104241

            Bug ID: 104241
           Summary: [CI] igt at perf_pmu@busy-vecs0 - fail - Failed
                    assertion: (double)(val) <= (1.0 + (tolerance)) *
                    (double)(ref) && (double)(val) >= (1.0 - (tolerance))
                    * (double)(ref) (perf_pmu:1587) CRITICAL: 'val' !=
                    'ref' (539089723.000000 not within 5.000000% tolerance
           Product: DRI
           Version: DRI git
          Hardware: Other
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: medium
         Component: DRM/Intel
          Assignee: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
          Reporter: marta.lofstedt at intel.com
        QA Contact: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
                CC: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org

There has been a lot of bugs on the perf_pmu tests, I couldn't find any obvious
to reopen or duplicate this on so here is a new bug

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_4060/shard-glkb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-vecs0.html

(perf_pmu:1587) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function single, file
perf_pmu.c:159:
(perf_pmu:1587) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: (double)(val) <= (1.0 +
(tolerance)) * (double)(ref) && (double)(val) >= (1.0 - (tolerance)) *
(double)(ref)
(perf_pmu:1587) CRITICAL: 'val' != 'ref' (539089723.000000 not within 5.000000%
tolerance of 500000000.000000)
Subtest busy-vecs0 failed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20171213/e63a7a3d/attachment-0001.html>