[Bug 107799] [CI][SHARDS] igt at gem_eio@in-flight-*-(10ms|1us|immediate) - fail - Failed assertion: elapsed < 250e6

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107799

--- Comment #7 from Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr> ---
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #4)
> > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_135/fi-bwr-2160/
> > igt at gem_eio@wait-immediate.html
> > 
> > Starting subtest: wait-immediate
> > (gem_eio:882) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function check_wait, file
> > ../tests/i915/gem_eio.c:258:
> > (gem_eio:882) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: elapsed < 250e6
> > (gem_eio:882) CRITICAL: Wake up following reset+wedge took 290.703ms
> > Subtest wait-immediate failed.
> 
> Fwiw, bwr appears to be slowed down by display post-reset probing. Tempting
> to move that into its own thread, if it can't be dramatically sped up since
> the state is known.

Well, that could explain :)

(In reply to Joonas Lahtinen from comment #5)
> After some discussion, agreement is that the issue is actually an
> intermittent scheduling delay for the userspace process. So it is an issue,
> but not really high and could also be something outside of our scope.
> Changing importance to low for reconsideration.

Scheduling delay resulting in over 1s latency? That sounds odd and could easily
be worked-around by changing the scheduling policy to realtime.

Anyway, right now, we suppress:
 - SNB BYT BSW GLK: igt at gem_eio@in-flight-*-(10ms|1us|immediate) - fail -
Failed assertion: elapsed < 250e6
 - BWR: igt at gem_eio@wait-immediate - fail - Failed assertion: elapsed < 250e6

If you think the customer impact is really warranting a low, then go for it.
Otherwise, bump the priority to what you thing is acceptable.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20181119/ce694b8b/attachment.html>