[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 20/10/2016 15:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 20/10/2016 10:16, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is
>>>>>> equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the
>>>>>> "quick" set.
>>>>> How equally is "equally"? Is the test actually redundant, should it be
>>>>> removed altogether?
>>>> The stress patterns exhibited by the test are identical to others in
>>>> BAT. The accuracy tests are covered by others in BAT. The actual flow
>>>> (edge coverage) will be subtly different and therefore the test is still
>>>> unique and may catch future bugs not caught by others. But as far as BAT
>>>> goes the likelihood of this catching something not caught by others
>>>> within BAT is very very small.
>>> But given that we have 50k gem tests in full igt, does it really make
>>> sense to keep it? Imo there's not much point in keeping around every
>>> minute combinatorial variation if it means we can never run the full set
>>> of testcases. Some serious trimming of the herd is probably called for.
>>>
>>> Joonas/Tvrtko/Mika and other gem folks: What's your stance here?
>> I am very fond of gem_storedw_loop, it was indispensable during
>> platform bringup in Fulsim in a not so distant past.
>>
>> Even if not so, it is a very short and simple test ("Basic CS check
>> using MI_STORE_DATA_IMM"), while gem_sync is much more complex and
>> deals with a different issues.
> See gem_exec_store for an even shorter sanity test of CS (also in BAT).
> We have overlap between this, gem_exec_basic, gem_exec_store,
> gem_exec_nop, gem_ringfill and gem_sync.
>
>> Without going into wider discussion, I vote to keep this particular test.
> In BAT?

No sorry I read some later bits of the thread and came back to reply 
here - I was referring just to the igt codebase.

Regards,

Tvrtko


> -Chris
>