[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 3/4] igt/gem_ctx_param_basic: Updated to support scheduler priority interface

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 12/02/16 09:38, Derek Morton wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>
> The GPU scheduler has added an execution priority level to the context
> object. There is an IOCTL interface to allow user apps/libraries to
> set this priority. This patch updates the context paramter IOCTL test
> to include the new interface.
>
> For: VIZ-1587
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
> ---
>   lib/ioctl_wrappers.h        |  1 +
>   tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> index 4d913c5..f1ef739 100644
> --- a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> +++ b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ struct local_i915_gem_context_param {
>   #define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD	0x1
>   #define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP	0x2
>   #define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_GTT_SIZE	0x3
> +#define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY	0x4
>   	uint64_t value;
>   };
>   void gem_context_require_ban_period(int fd);
> diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> index b75800c..585a1a8 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> @@ -147,10 +147,42 @@ igt_main
>   		TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
>   	}
>   
> +	ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> +
> +	igt_subtest("priority-root-set") {
> +		ctx_param.context = ctx;
> +		ctx_param.value = 2048;
> +		TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EINVAL);
> +		ctx_param.value = -2048;
> +		TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EINVAL);
> +		ctx_param.value = 512;
> +		TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
> +		ctx_param.value = -512;
> +		TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);

in the latest scheduler patchset I've looked at the max and min priority 
values were exported through debugfs via 
i915_scheduler_priority_<min/max>, so instead of using 512 and 2048 as 
valid and invalid priority values we could use the values returned by 
the debugfs forTEST_SUCCESS and the same values +/-1 for TEST_FAIL.

The patch as it is still LGTM, so with or without my suggested change:

Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>

Regards,
Daniele

> +		ctx_param.value = 0;
> +		TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
> +	}
> +
> +	igt_subtest("priority-non-root-set") {
> +		igt_fork(child, 1) {
> +			igt_drop_root();
> +
> +			ctx_param.context = ctx;
> +			ctx_param.value = 512;
> +			TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EPERM);
> +			ctx_param.value = -512;
> +			TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
> +			ctx_param.value = 0;
> +			TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
> +		}
> +
> +		igt_waitchildren();
> +	}
> +
>   	/* NOTE: This testcase intentionally tests for the next free parameter
>   	 * to catch ABI extensions. Don't "fix" this testcase without adding all
>   	 * the tests for the new param first. */
> -	ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_GTT_SIZE + 1;
> +	ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY + 1;
>   
>   	igt_subtest("invalid-param-get") {
>   		ctx_param.context = ctx;