[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v9 09/21] tests/sw_sync: Add subtest test_sync_multi_consumer

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On 22 November 2016 at 14:28,  <robert.foss at collabora.com> wrote:
> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
>
> This subtest verifies the access ordering of multiple consumer threads.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric at engestrom.ch>
> ---
>  tests/sw_sync.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/sw_sync.c b/tests/sw_sync.c
> index ada1243..cd0c588 100644
> --- a/tests/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/tests/sw_sync.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
>   *    Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
>   */
>
> +#include <pthread.h>
> +#include <semaphore.h>
>  #include <stdint.h>
>  #include <unistd.h>
>
> @@ -39,6 +41,15 @@
>
>  IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test SW Sync Framework");
>
> +typedef struct {
> +       int timeline;
> +       uint32_t thread_id;
> +       uint32_t nbr_threads;
> +       uint32_t nbr_iterations;

Any reason why these two cannot be just defines?

> +       volatile uint32_t * volatile counter;
> +       sem_t *sem;
> +} data_t;
> +
>  static void test_alloc_timeline(void)
>  {
>         int timeline;
> @@ -219,6 +230,95 @@ static void test_sync_merge_same(void)
>         close(timeline);
>  }
>
> +static void * test_sync_multi_consumer_thread(void *arg)
> +{
> +       data_t *data = arg;
> +       int thread_id = data->thread_id;
> +       int nbr_threads = data->nbr_threads;
> +       int timeline = data->timeline;
> +       int iterations = data->nbr_iterations;
> +       int ret, i;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
> +               int next_point = i * nbr_threads + thread_id;
> +               int fence = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, next_point);
> +
> +               ret = sync_wait(fence, 1000);
> +               if (ret == -1)
> +               {
> +                       return (void *) 1;
> +               }
> +
> +               if (*(data->counter) != next_point)
> +               {
> +                       return (void *) 1;
> +               }
> +
> +               sem_post(data->sem);
> +               close(fence);
> +       }
> +       return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_sync_multi_consumer(void)
> +{
> +       const uint32_t nbr_threads = 8;
> +       const uint32_t nbr_iterations = 1 << 14;
> +       data_t data_arr[nbr_threads];
> +       pthread_t thread_arr[nbr_threads];
> +       sem_t sem;
> +       int timeline;
> +       volatile uint32_t counter = 0;
> +       uintptr_t thread_ret = 0;
> +       data_t data;
> +       int i, ret;
> +
> +       sem_init(&sem, 0, 0);
> +       timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
> +
> +       data.nbr_iterations = nbr_iterations;
> +       data.nbr_threads = nbr_threads;
> +       data.counter = &counter;
> +       data.timeline = timeline;
> +       data.sem = &sem;
> +
> +       /* Start sync threads. */
> +       for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads; i++)
> +       {
> +               data_arr[i] = data;
> +               data_arr[i].thread_id = i;
> +               ret = pthread_create(&thread_arr[i], NULL,
> +                                    test_sync_multi_consumer_thread,
> +                                    (void *) &(data_arr[i]));
> +               igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Produce 'content'. */
> +       for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads * nbr_iterations; i++)
> +       {
> +               sem_wait(&sem);
> +
> +               counter++;
> +               sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Wait for threads to complete. */
> +       for (i = 0; i < nbr_threads; i++)
> +       {
> +               uintptr_t local_thread_ret;
> +               pthread_join(thread_arr[i], (void **)&local_thread_ret);
> +               thread_ret |= local_thread_ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       close(timeline);
> +       sem_destroy(&sem);
> +
> +       igt_assert_f(counter == nbr_threads * nbr_iterations,
> +                    "Counter has unexpected value.\n");

In this case I think igt_assert_eq would be more useful.

> +       igt_assert_f(thread_ret == 0, "A sync thread reported failure.\n");

Here probably as well, unless the message can be improved.

> +}
> +
>  igt_main
>  {
>         igt_subtest("alloc_timeline")
> @@ -241,5 +341,8 @@ igt_main
>
>         igt_subtest("sync_merge_same")
>                 test_sync_merge_same();
> +
> +       igt_subtest("sync_multi_consumer")
> +               test_sync_multi_consumer();
>  }
>
> --
> 2.10.2
>