[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] gem_concurrent_blit: Don't call igt_require() outside of a subtest/fixture

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 08:52:24AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 09:00:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:10:38AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > gem_concurrent_blit tries to ensure that it doesn't try and run a test
> > > that would grind the system to a halt, i.e. unexpectedly cause swap
> > > thrashing. It currently calls intel_require_memory(), but outside of
> > > the subtest (as the tests use fork, it cannot do requirement testing
> > > within the test children) - but intel_require_memory() calls
> > > igt_require() and triggers and abort. Wrapping that initial require
> > > within an igt_fixture() stops the abort(), but also prevents any further
> > > testing.
> > > 
> > > This patch restructures the requirement checking to ordinary conditions,
> > > which though allowing the test to run, also prevents listing of subtests
> > > on machines which cannot handle them.
> > 
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  lib/igt_aux.h              |  2 ++
> > >  lib/intel_os.c             | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  tests/gem_concurrent_all.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/igt_aux.h b/lib/igt_aux.h
> > > index 6e11ee6..5a88c2a 100644
> > > --- a/lib/igt_aux.h
> > > +++ b/lib/igt_aux.h
> > > @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ uint64_t intel_get_total_swap_mb(void);
> > >  
> > >  #define CHECK_RAM 0x1
> > >  #define CHECK_SWAP 0x2
> > > +int __intel_check_memory(uint32_t count, uint64_t size, unsigned mode,
> > > +			 uint64_t *out_required, uint64_t *out_total);
> > >  void intel_require_memory(uint32_t count, uint64_t size, unsigned mode);
> > >  int intel_num_objects_for_memory(uint32_t size, unsigned mode);
> > >  
> > > diff --git a/lib/intel_os.c b/lib/intel_os.c
> > > index dba9e17..90f9bb3 100644
> > > --- a/lib/intel_os.c
> > > +++ b/lib/intel_os.c
> > > @@ -192,6 +192,38 @@ intel_get_total_swap_mb(void)
> > >  	return retval / (1024*1024);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > 
> > Please add the usual gtkdoc boilerplate here with a mention of
> > intel_check_memory. Ack with that.
> 
> You were meant to object about how this breaks test runners and suggest
> how we can do this without that breakage.

Oh I didn't realize that you're moving things out of
igt_fixture/igt_subtest blocks again ... Ack retracted, I'll check what
happened to my coffee meanwhile ;-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch