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

[Petri Latvala]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:18:00PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> 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.


Am I understanding correctly that gem folks don't object to
gem_storedw_loop being removed from BAT?


--
Petri Latvala